The Seven Ecumenical Councils

The Sage Digital Library

Select Library

of

The Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers

of

The Christian Church

SECOND SERIES

Under the Editorial Supervision of

Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. and Henry Wace, D.D.,

Proiessor of Chinch Histoiy in the Proiessor of King's

Union Theological Seminary, New York. College, London.

VOLUME 14
The Seven Ecumenical Councils

New York Christian Literature Company 1890-1900
riajjUj^ Digital Hublifortigns

THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH

THEIR CANONS AND DOGMATIC DECREES,

TOGETHER WITH THE CANONS OF ALL THE LOCAL SYNODS
WHICH HAVE RECEIVED ECUMENICAL ACCEPTANCE.

EDITED WITH NOTES GATHERED FROM THE WRITINGS OF
THE GREATEST SCHOLARS

BY

HENRY R. PERCIVAL, M.A., D.D

CONTENTS

Preface,

General Introduction,

1 . Method of Treatment.

2. Concerning Ecumenical Councils in General.

3. The Number of the Ecumenical Synods,.
Biographical Introduction,

Appended Note on the Eastern Editions of Synod ical Literature,
A Bibliographical Index of the Printed Editions of the Canons
of the Apostles and of the Councils in the Slavonic and
Russian Languages,

Excursus on the History of the Roman Law and its Relations to
the Canon Law,

I. The First Ecumenical Council — The First Council of Nice,

a .d . 325,
Historical Introduction,
The Nicene Creed,
Excursus on the Word Homousios,
Excursus on the Words yevvr|0evToc bv TtoinGevToc,
The Canons of 3 1 8 Holy Fathers assembled in the City of Nice, in

Bithnyia,
Excursus on the Use of the word "Canon,"
Excursus on the WordTtpoaGepeiv,
Excursus on the Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the

Suburbicarian Churches,
Excursus on the Rise of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem,
Excursus on the Chorepiscopi,

Excursus on the Public Discipline or Exomologesis of the Early Church,
Excursus on the Communion of the Sick,
Excursus on the Translation of Bishops,
Excursus on Usury,

Excursus on the Deaconess of the Early Church,
Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons,
The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice,

Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy,

The Synodal Letter,

Excursus on the Subsequent History of the Eastern Question,

II. The Canonsofthe Councils ofAncyra,Gangra,

Neocaesarea, Antioch andLaodicea — Which canons were
accepted and received by the ecumenical synods,

Introductory Note to the Canons of Provincial Synods,

1. The Council of Ancyra, a.d .314 — Historical Note,
The Canons of the Councilof Ancyra

Excursus on Second Marriages, called Digamy

2. The Council of Neocaesarea c. a .d. 315 — Historical Note,
The Canons of the Holy and Blessed Fathers who Assembled at

Neocaesarea,

3. The Council of Gangra, a .d . 325-381 — Historical Introduction,
Synodical Letter of the Council of Gangra,

The Canons of the Holy Fathers Assembled at Gangra,

4. The Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis — A .D . 341,
Historical Introduction,

The Synodal Letter,

The Canons of the Blessed and Holy Fathers Assembled at Antioch in
Syria,

5. Synod of Laodicea, a .d . 343-381,
Historical Introduction,

The Canons of the Synod held in the City of Laodicea, in Phrygia

Pacatiana,
Excursus on the Choir Offices of the Early

Church,
Excursus on the Worship of the Early Church,
Excursus on the Vestments of the Early Church,
Excursus on the Minor Orders of the Early Church,

6

ULTheSecond Ecumenical Council — The first Council of
Constantinople, A.d . 381,

Historical Introduction,

The Holy Creed which the 150 Fathers set forth, which is Consonant with

the Holy and Great Synod of Nice,
Historical Excursus on the Introduction into the Creed of the Words "and

the Son,"
Historical Note on the lost "Tome" of the Second Council,
Letter of the Same Holy Synod to the Most Pious Emperor Theodosius
the

Great, to which are Appended the Canons Enacted by Them.
Introduction on the Number of the Canons,
Canons of the 150 Fathers who Assembled at Constantinople,
Excursus on the Heresies Condemned in Canon I.,
Warning to the Reader Touching Canon VII.,
Excursus on the Authority of the Second Ecumenical Council,
The Council of Constantinople, a.d . 382 — The Synodical Letter,

IV. The Third Ecumenical Council — The Council of Ephesus,

a.d. 431,

Historical Introduction,

Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod.

Extracts from the Acts — Session I.,

The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius,

Extracts from the Acts — Session I. (continued),

Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms,

The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII. Anathematisms,

The Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius,

Excursus on the Word 0eot6ko<;,

Excursus on How Our Lord Worked Miracles,

Extracts from the Acts — Session I. (Continued),

Decree of the Council Against Nestorius,

Extracts from the Acts — Session II.,

The Letter of Pope Coelestine to the Synod of Ephesus,

Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (Continued),

Extracts from the Acts — Session III.,

The Canons of the 200 Holy and Blessed Fathers Who Met at Ephesus,

Excursus on the Conciliabulum of John of Antioch,

Excursus on Pelagianism,

Observation of the Roman Editors (Ed. 1608),

Observation of Philip Labbe, S.J.P.,

Excursus on the Words 7tiaTiv exepocv,

The Letter of the Same Holy Synod of Ephesus to the Sacred Synod in

Pamphylia Concerning Eustathius who had been Their

Metropolitan,
The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine,
The Definition of the Holy and Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus Against the

Impious Messalians, who are also called Euchetae and Enthusiasts,
Note on the Messalians or Massalians,
Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Euprepius and Cyril,

V.The Fourth Ecumenical Council — The Council of
Chalcedon, a .d. 451,

General Introduction,

Extracts from the Acts — Session I.,

Extracts from the Acts — Session II,

The Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch,

Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (continued),

The Tome of St. Leo,

Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (continued),

The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus,

Extracts from the Acts — Session IV.,

Extracts from the Acts — Session V.,

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon,

Extracts from the Acts — Session VI.,

Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch,

The Decree with Regard to the Bishop of Ephesus — Session XII.,

Decree with Regard to Nicomedia — Session XIII. ,

The XXX. Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synod of Chalcedon,

Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII. ,

Extracts from the Acts — Session XVI.,

VI. The fifth Ecumenical Council /em/TheSecond Council of
Constantinople, a .d. 553,

Historical Introduction,

Excursus on the Genuineness of the Acts of the Fifth Council,

Extracts from the Acts — Session I.,

Extracts from the Acts — Session VII.,

The Sentence of the Synod,

The Capitula of the Council,

Excursus on the XV. Anathemas Against Origen,

The Anathemas Against Origen,

The Anathematisms of the Emporer Justinian Against Origen,

The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth

Ecumenical Synod,

Historical Excursus on the After History of the Council,

VII. The Sixth Ecumenical council — the third Council of
Constantinople, a .d. 680-681,

Historical Introduction,

Extracts from the Acts — Session I.,

The Letter of Agatho, Pope of Old Rome,

to the Emporer, and the Letter of Agatho,

and of 125 Bishops of the Roman synod,
Addressed to the Sixth Council,
Introductory Note,
The Letter of Pope Agatho,

The Letter of Pope Agatho and of the Roman Synod of 125 Bishops
which

was to Serve as an Instruction to the Legates Sent to Attend the

Sixth Synod,
Extracts from the Acts — Session VIII. ,
The Sentence Against the Monothelites — Session XIII. ,
Extracts from the Acts — Session XVI.,
The Definition of Faith,
The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor,
Letter of the Council to St. Agatho,

Excursus on the Condemnation of of Pope Honorius,
The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church, near
what is Called the Dicyjmbals,

VUL The Ca n o n s of the Council in Trullo; Often Called the
Quinisext Council, a. d. 692,

Introductory Note,

The Canons of the Council in Trullo,

Excursus on the Marriage of the Clergy,

LX. The Canons of the Synods of Sardica, Carthage,

Constantinople, and Carthage under St. Cyprian, which

Canons were received by the council in trullo and ratified by

Nice IL,

Introductory Note,

1. The Council of Sardica, a.d . 343 or 344,
Introduction on the Date of the Council,
Note on the Text of the Canons,

The Canons of the Council of Sardica,

Excursus as to Whether the Sardica Council was Ecumenical,

2. The Canons of the CCXVII. Blessed Fathers who Assembled at

Carthage, Commonly Called the Code of Canons of the African

Church, a.d. 419,
Introductory Note,
An Ancient Introduction,
The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who Assembled at Carthage,

3. Council of Constantinople held Under Nectarius,A .d . 394,
Introductory Note,

Council of Constantinople under Nectarius of Constantinople under
Nectarius of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria,

4. The Council of Carthage Held Under Cyprian, a .d . 257,
Introductory Note,

The Synod Held at Carthage over which Presided the Great and Holy

10

Martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d . 257.
Epistle LXX. Cyprian, Liberalis, Caledonius, etc., to Their Brethren,
Januarius, etc., Greeting,

X. The Seventh Ecumenical Council — The Second Council of

Nice, a.d. 787,

Introduction,

The Divine Sacra Sent by the Emperors Constantine and Iren to the Most

Holy and Blessed Hadrian, Pope of Old Rome, The Imperial Sacra Read at

the First Session,
Extracts from the Acts — Session I.,
Extracts from the Acts — Session II.,
Extracts from the Acts — Session III.,
Extracts from the Acts — Session IV.,
Extracts from the Acts — Session VI.,
Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum, Held in

Constantinople, A .D . 754,
Excursus on the Conciliabulum Styling Itself the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, but Commonly called the Mock Synod of Constantinople,
The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice,
Excursus on the Present Teaching of the Latin and Greek Churches on the

Subject,
The Canons of the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council,
Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress,
Examination on the Council of Frankfort, a .d . 794,
Historical Note on the So-called "Eighth General Council" and Subsequent
Councils,

Appendix Containing Canons and Rulings, Not having Conciliar
Or i gin, but approved by Name in Canon n. of theSynodin

TR U L L ,

Prefatory Note,

1. The Apostolical Canons,

The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles,

11

2. The Canons of the Blessed Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, and
Martyr,

which are Found in His Sermon on Penitence,

3. The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Archbishop of Neocaesarea, who

is called Thaumaturgus, Concerning them that During the Incursion
of the Barbarians Ate of Things offered to Idols, and Committed
Certain Other Sins,

4. The Epistle of St. Athanasius to the Monk Ammus,

The Epistle of the Same Athanasius Taken from the XXXIX. Festal

Epistle,
The Epistle of St. Athanasius to Ruffinian,

5. The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of

Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium,
The Second Canonical Epistle of the Same,
The Third Epistle of the Same to the Same,

6. The Canoncial Epistle of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, to St. Letoius,

Bishop of Mitylene,

7. From the Metre Poems of St. Gregory Theologus, Specifying which

Books of the Old and New Testament Should be Read,

8. From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius, the Bishop to Seleucus on the

Same Subject,

9. The Canonical Answers of Timothy, the Most Holy Bishop of

Alexandria, who was One of the CL. Fathers Gathered Together at
Constantinople, to the Questions Proposed to Him Concerning
Bishops and Clerics,

10. The Prosphonesus of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, when the

Holy Epiphanies Happened to Fall on a Sunday,
The Commonitory of the Same which Ammon received on Account of

Lycus,
The Narrative of the Same Concerning those Called Cathari,

12

11. The Canonical Epistle of our Holy Father among the Saints, Cyril,
Archbishop of Alexandria, on the Hymns. — Cyril to Domnus. — Of the
Same to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis,

12. The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and

of the Holy Synod met with Him to all the Holy Metropolitans,
and to the Pope of the City of Rome,

13

PREFACE

The work intrusted to me of preparing this volume evidently can be
divided into two separate parts. The first, the collecting of the material
needed and the setting of it before the reader in the English tongue; the
other, the preparation of suitable introductions and notes to the matter
thus provided. Now in each of these departments two courses were open
to the editor: the one, to be original; the other, to be a copyist. I need
hardly say that of these the former offered many temptations. But I could
not fail to recognize the fact that such a course would greatly take from the
real value of the work, and therefore without any hesitation I have adopted
the other alternative, and have endeavored, so far as was at all possible, to
keep myself out of the question altogether; and as a general rule even the
translation of the text (as distinguished from the notes) is not mine but
that of some scholar of well-established reputation.

In the carrying out of this method of procedure I have availed myself of all
the translations which I could find, and where, after comparing them with
the original, I have thought them substantially accurate, I have adopted
them and reproduced them. Where I have thought that the translation was
misleading, I have amended it from some other translation, and, I think, in
no case have I ventured a change of translation which rests upon my own
judgment alone. A very considerable portion, however, of the matter found
in this volume is now translated into English for the first time. For some of
this I am indebted to my friends, who have most kindly given me every
assistance in their power, but even here no translation has been made from
the Greek without careful reference being had to the traditional
understanding, as handed down in the Latin versions, and wherever the
Latin and Greek texts differ on material points the difference has been
noted. I have not thought it necessary nor desirable to specify the source
of each particular translation, but I have provided for the use of the reader
a list of all the translations which I have used. I should also add that I have
not considered any one text sufficiently well established as to command

14

any deference being paid to it, and that I have usually followed (for my
own convenience rather than for any other reason) the text contained in
Labbe and Cossart's Concilia. No doubt Hardouin and Mansi are in some
respects superior, but old prejudices are very strong, and the reader will
remember that these differing Concilia gave rise to a hard- fought battle in
the history of the Gallican Church. I should add, however, that where
more recent students of the subject have detected errors of importance in
Labbe' s text, I have corrected them, usually noting the variety of reading.
With regard then to the text I entirely disclaim any responsibility, and the
more so as on such a matter my opinion would be entirely valueless. And
with regard to the translation my responsibility goes no further than the
certifying the reader that, to all intents and purposes, the meaning of the
original is presented to him in the English language and without
interpretation being introduced under the specious guise of translation.
Some portions are mere literal translations, and some are done into more
idiomatic English, but all — so far as I am able to judge — are fair
renderings of the original, its ambiguities being duly preserved. I have used
as the foundation of the translation of the canons of the first four synods
and of the five Provincial Synods that most convenient book, Index
Canonum, by the Rev. John Fulton, D.D., D.C.L., in which united to a
good translation is a Greek text, very well edited and clearly printed.

In preparing the other divisions of the book, that is to say, the
Introduction and Notes, I have been guided by the same considerations.
Here will be found no new and brilliant guesses of my own, but a
collection of the most reliable conclusions of the most weighty critics and
commentators. Where the notes are of any length I have traced the source
and given the exact reference, but for the brief notes, where I have not
thought this necessary, the reader may fell the greatest confidence that he
is not reading any surmise of mine, but that in every particular what he
reads rests upon the authority of the greatest names who have written on
the subject. In the bibliographical table already referred to I have placed
the authorities most frequently cited.

I think it necessary to make a few remarks upon the rule which I have laid
down for myself with regard to my attitude on controverted questions
bearing upon doctrine or ecclesiastical doctrine. It seems to me that in such
a work as the present any expression of the editor's views would be

15

eminently out of place. I have therefore confined myself to a bare
statement of what I conceive to be the facts of the case, and have left the
reader to draw from them what conclusions he pleases. I hope that this
volume may be equally acceptable to the Catholics and to the Protestant,
to the Eastern and to the Western, and while I naturally think that the
facts presented are clearly in accordance with my own views, I hope that
those who draw from the same premises different conclusions will find
these promises stated to their satisfaction in the following pages. And
should such be the case this volume may well be a step toward "the union
of all: and toward "the peace of all the holy churches of God," for which
the unchanging East has so constantly prayed in her liturgy.

I wish to explain to the reader one other principle on which I have
proceeded in preparing this volume. It professes to be a translation of the
decrees and canons of certain ecclesiastical synods. It is not a history of
those synods, nor is it a theological treatise upon the truth or otherwise of
the doctrines set forth by those synods in their legislation. I have therefore
carefully restricted my own historical introductions to a bare statement of
such facts as seemed needed to render the meaning of the matter
subsequently presented intelligible to the reader. And with regard to
doctrine I have pursued the same course, merely explaining what the
doctrine taught or condemned was, without entering into any consideration
of its truth or falsity. For the history of the Church and its Councils the
reader must consult the great historians; for a defense of the Church's faith
he must read the works of her theologians.

I need hardly say that the overwhelming majority of the references found
in this volume I have had no opportunity of verifying, no copy of many of
the books being (so far as I know) to be found in America. I have,
however, taken great pains to insure accuracy in reproducing the references
as given in the books from which I have cited them; this, however, does
not give me any feeling of confidence that they may be relied on,
especially as in some cases where I have been able to look them up, I have
found errors of the most serious kind.

In now only remains that I thank all those who have assisted me in this
work, and especially I must mention his Excellency the High Procurator of
the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, who directed the bibliographical

16

table of Russian editions of the Canons, etc., which is found in this
volume, to be prepared for me by Professor Glubokoffski of the
Ecclesiastical Academy at St. Petersburgh. My special thanks are due to
the learned professor just named for the very admirable manner in which
he has performed the work, and to Mr. W.J. Birkbeck, who has added one
more to his numerous labours for making the West better acquainted with
the East by translating the Russian MS. into English. I cannot but pause
here to remark how deep my regret is that my ignorance of the Russian
and Slavic tongues has prevented me from laying before my readers the
treasures of learning and the stores of tradition and local illustration which
these volumes must contain. I am, however, extremely well pleased in
being able to put those, who are more fortunate than myself in this
respect, in the way of investigating the matter for themselves, by
supplying them with the titles of the books on the subject. I desire also to
offer my thanks to Professor Bolotoff for the valuable information he sent
me as well as for a copy of his learned (and often most just) strictures
upon Professor Lauchert's book, "Die Kanones der wichtigsten
altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostolischen Kanones." (Freiburg in
B. und Leipzig, 1896.)

The Rev. Wm. McGarvey has helped me most kindly by translating parts
of the Second Council of Nice, and one or more of the African Canons; and
by looking over the translation of the entire African code.

The Rev.F.A. Sanborn translated two of St. Cyril's letters, and the Rev.
Leighton Hoskins the Sardican Canons. To these and many others of my
friends, who in one way or another helped me, I wish to return my deep
thanks; also to the Nashotah Theological Seminary and to the Lutheran
Theological Seminary at Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, for having placed their
libraries entirely at my disposal; nor can I end this list without mention of
my sister, who as assisted me most materially through the entire progress
of the work, and without whom I never could have undertaken it.

When I think of the great number of authors cited, of the rapidity with
which most of the translation has had to be done, of the difficulty of
getting access to the necessary books, and of the vast range of subjects
touched upon (including almost every branch of ecclesiastical and
theological learning), I feel I must throw myself and my work upon the

17

reader's indulgence and beg him to take all this in consideration in making
his estimate of the value of the work done. As for me, now that it is all
finished, I feel like crying out with the reader, in deep shame at the
recollection of the many blunders he has made in reading the lesson, —
"Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis!"

In conclusion I would add that nothing I have written must be interpreted
as meaning that the editor personally has any doubt of the truth of the
doctrines set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of the Christian Churhc,
and I wish to declare in the most distinct manner that I accept all the
doctrinal decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods as infallible and
irreformable.

HenryR. Percival.
Pentecost, 1899.

18

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

I. METHOD OF TREATMENT

It is absolutely necessary that a few words should be said on the general
arrangement of the work. The reader will find given him in the English
tongue, so far as they have come down to us, all the doctrinal definitions
of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (councils which have always, and still
do, receive the unqualified acceptance of both East and West), and all the
canons, disciplinary and doctrinal, which were enacted by them. To these
has been added a translation in full of all the canons of the local synods
which received the approval and sanction of the aforesaid Ecumenical
Councils. Besides this, as throwing light upon the subject, large extracts
from the Acta, have been given, in fact all that seemed to illustrate the
decrees; and, that nothing might be lacking, in an appendix has been placed
a collection of all the non- synodal canons which have received the sanction
of the Ecumenical Synods, the "Canons of the Apostles" (so called) being
given in full, and the others in a shortened form, for the most part in the
words of the admirable and learned John Johnson.

This then is the text of the volume; but it is manifest that it stood in need
of much comment to make its meaning clear to the reader, even if well
informed on ordinary matters. To provide for this, to each synodal canon
there has been added the Ancient Epitome.

Of this Epitome Bishop Beveridge treats with great learning in section 26.
of his "Prolegomena" to his Synodicon, and shows that while some
attributed this epitome to the Greek mediaeval scholiast Aristenus, it
cannot be his, as he has taken it for the text of his commentaries, and has
in more than one instance pointed out that whoever he was who made it
had, in his judgment, missed the sense.

The Epitome must indeed be much older, for Nicholas Hydruntinus, who
lived in the times of Alexis Angelus, when intending to quote one of the

19

canons of Ephesus, actually quotes words which are not in that canon, but
which are in the Epitome. "Wherefore," says Beveridge, "it is manifest
that the Epitome is here cited, and that under the name of the whole
canon." This being established we may justly look upon the Ancient
Epitome as supplying us with a very ancient gloss upon the canons.

To this Epitome have been added Notes, taken from most of the great
commentators, and Excursus, largely made up from the writings of the
greatest theologians, canonists, archaeologists, etc., with regard to whom
and their writings, all the information that seems necessary the reader will
find in the Bibliographical Introduction.

II. CONCERNING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IN GENERAL

An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which
have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is not
necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops
present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I.
Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the
intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I.
Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have
been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been
invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance
afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized.

The reader will notice that in the foregoing, I have not proceeded from the
theological foundation of what an Ecumenical Synod should be (with this
question the present volume has nothing to do), but from a consideration
of the historical question as to what the Seven Councils have in common,
which distinguishes them from the other councils of the Christian Church.

And here it is well to note that there have been many "General Councils"
which have not been "Ecumenical." It is true that in ordinary parlance we
often use the expressions as interchangeable, but such really is not the
case. There are but seven universally recognized and undisputed
"Ecumenical Councils"; on the other hand, the number of "General
Councils" is very considerable, and as a matter of fact of these last several

20

very large ones fell into heresy. It is only necessary to mention as
examples the Latrocinium and the spurious "Seventh Council," held by the
iconoclastic heretics. It is therefore the mere statement of an historical fact
to say that General Councils have erred.

The Ecumenicals Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from error
in their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promise
of the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Council looked upon
itself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once for
all delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselves
ecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of the
faithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the Church. And by
the then teaching of the Church that ecumenical consensus was considered
free from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord's
promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church. This
then is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility of
Ecumenical Councils. Whether this opinion is true or false is a question
outside the scope of the present discussion. It was necessary, however, to
state that these Councils looked upon themselves as divinely protected in
their decisions from error in faith and morals, lest the reader should
otherwise be at a loss to understand the anathematisms which follow the
decrees, and which indeed would be singularly out of place, if the decrees
which they thus emphatically affirm were supposed to rest only upon
human wisdom and speculation, instead of upon divine authority.

Theologians consider that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, like all
jurdicial decrees, must be considered strictly, and that only the point at
issue must be looked upon but yet they have no claim to be possessed of
that supreme authority which belongs to the definition of the particular
point under consideration.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the
commandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matter
on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); without
any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know; and
contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he
only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already
convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical

21

Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the
See of Rome.

In the history of the Great Christian Church, especially at a later period in
connection with the Great Schism, much discussion has taken place among
the learned as to the relative powers of a General Council and of the Pope.
It will be remembered by everyone that the superior authority of the
council was not only taught, but on one occasion acted on, by a council,
but this is outside of the period covered by the Seven Ecumenical Synods,
and I shall therefore only discuss the relations of these seven synods to
the Roman See. And in the first place it is evident that no council has ever
been received as ecumenical which has not been received and confirmed by
the Roman Pontiff. But, after all, this is only saying that no council has
been accepted as ecumenical which has not been ecumenically received, for
it must be remembered that there was but one Patriarchate for the whole
West, that of Rome; and this is true to all intents and purposes, whether
or no certain sections had extrapatriarchal privileges, and were
"autocephalous."

But it would be giving an entirely unfair impression of the matter to the
reader were he left to suppose that this necessity for Rome's confirmation
sprang necessarily from any idea of Rome's infallibility. So far as he
appears from any extant document, such an idea was as unknown in the
whole world then as it is in four of the five patriarchates to-day. And it
should be borne in mind that the confirmation by the Emperor was sought
for and spoken of in quite as strong, if not stronger, terms. Before passing
to a particular examination of what relation each of the Councils bore to
the Roman See, it may be well to note that while as an historical fact each
of the Seven Ecumenical Councils did eventually find acceptance at Rome,
this fact does not prove that such acceptance is necessary in the nature of
all things. If we can imagine a time when Rome is not in communion with
the greater part of the West, then it is quite possible to imagine that an
Ecumenical Council could be held whose decrees would (for the time
being) be rejected by the unworthy occupant of the Apostolic See. I am
not asserting that such a state of affairs is possible from a theological
standpoint, but merely stating an historical contingency which is perfectly
within the range of imagination, even if cut off from any practical
possibility by the faith of some.

22

We now come to a consideration of how, by its acts, each of the Seven
Synods intimated its relation to the Roman See:

1. The First Council of Nice passed a canon in which placed some at least
of the Roman rights are evidently looked upon as being exactly on the
same plane as those of other metropolitans, declaring that they rest upon
"custom."

It was the Emperor who originated this council and called it together, if we
may believe his own words and those of the council; and while indeed it is
possible that when the Emperor did not preside in person, Hosius of
Cordova may have done so (even uniting the two Roman Presbyters who
were the legates of the Roman See with him), yet there is no evidence that
anything of the kind ever took place, and a pope, Felix III. (a.d. 483-492),
in his Fifth Epistle {ad Imp. Zen.) declares that Eustathius, bishop of
Antioch, presided at this council.

The matter, however, is of little moment as no one would deny the right of
the See of Rome to preside in a council of the whole Church.

2. The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor
without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be
present. Its first president was not in communion at the time of its session
with the Roman Church. And, without any recourse to the first of all the
patriarchs, it passed a canon changing the order of the patriarchates, and
setting the new see of Constantinople in a higher place than the other
ancient patriarchates, in fact immediately after Rome. Of course
Protestants will consider this a matter of very minor importance, looking
upon all patriarchal divisions and rank and priority (the Papacy included)
as of a disciplinary character and as being jure ecclesiastico, and in no way
affecting doctrine, but any fair reading of the third canon of this synod
would seem plainly to assert that as the first rank of Rome rested upon
the fact of its being the capital city, so the new capital city should have
the second rank. If this interpretation is correct it affects very materially
the Roman claim of jure divino primacy.

3. Before the third of the Ecumenical Synods was called to meet, Pope
Celestine had already convicted Nestorius of heresy and deposed and
excommunicated him. When subsequently the synod was assembled, and

23

before the papal legates had arrived, the Council met, treated Nestorius as
in good standing, entirely ignoring the sentence already given by Rome,
and by having examined the case (after summoning him three times to
appear that he might be heard in his own defense), proceeded to sentence
Nestorius, and immediately published the sentence. On the 10th of July
(more than a fortnight later), the papal legates having arrived, a second
session was held, at which they were told what had been done, all of
which they were good enough to approve of.

4. The Council of Chalcedon refused to consider the Eutychian matter as
settled by Rome's decision or to accept Leo's Tome without examination
as to whether it was orthodox. Moreover it passed a canon at a session
which the Papal legates refused to attend, ratifying the order of the
Patriarchates fixed at I. Constantinople, and declaring that "the Fathers
had very properly given privileges to Old Rome as the imperial city, and
that now they gave the same toc igoc Ttpeapeioc privileges" to
Constantinople as the seat of the imperial government at that time.

5. The fifth of the Ecumenical Synods refused to receive any written
doctrinal communication from the then pope (Vigilius), took his name
from the diptychs, and refused him communion.

6. The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth of the Ecumenical
Synods, excommunicated Pope Honorius, who had been dead for years,
for holding and teaching the Monothelite heresy.

7. It is certain that the Pope had nothing to do with the calling of the
Seventh Synod, and quite possible that it was presided over by Tarasius
and not by the Papal legates.

Such is, in brief, the evidence which the Ecumenical Councils give on the
subject of what, for lack of a better designation, may be called the Papal
claims. Under these circumstances it may not be deemed strange that some
extreme ultramontanists have arrived at the conclusion that much of the
acts and decisions as we have them is spurious, or at least corrupted in an
anti-papal direction. Vincenzi, who is the most learned of these writers,
argues somewhat thus 'if the members of the Ecumenical Synods believed
as we do to-day with regard to the Papacy it is impossible that they
should have acted and spoken as they did, but we know they must have

24

believed as we do, ergo they did not so act of speak.' The logic is
admirable, but the truth of the conclusion depends upon the truth of the
minor premise. The forgeries would have been very extensive, and who
were they done by? Forgeries, as the false decretals, to advance papal
claims we are unfortunately familiar with, but it is hard to imagine who
could have forged in Greek and Latin the acts of the Ecumenical Synods. It
is not necessary to pursue the matter any further, perhaps its very
mention was uncalled for, but I wish to be absolutely fair, that no one may
say that any evidence has been suppressed.

III. THE NUMBER OF THE ECUMENICAL SYNODS.

It may not be unjustly expected that some reasons should be assigned for
limiting the number of the Ecumenical Synods to seven. There is no need
here to enter into any proof that Nice, I. Constantinople, Ephesus and
Chalcedon are Ecumenical, since so long ago as the time of St. Gregory the
Great, that Saint and Doctor said of them: "I venerate the first four
Ecumenical Councils equally with the Four Gospels (sicut quatnor
Evangelia)," and no one has been found to question that in so saying he
gave expression to the mind of the Church of his day. Of the fifth and
sixth synods there never was any real doubt, although there was trouble at
first about the reception of the fifth in some places. The ecumenical
character of the seventh is not disputed by East or West and has not been
for near a thousand years, and full proof of its ecumenicity will be found
in connection with that council. There is therefore no possible doubt that
these seven must be included, but it may be asked why certain others are
not here also.

The following is a list of those that might seem to have a claim: Sardica
(343 circa), Quinisext (692), Constantinople (869), Lyons (1274), and
Florence (1439).

The reasons for rejecting the claims of Sardica will be found in connection
with the canons set forth by that council. The same is the case with regard
to the claims of the Synod in Trullo. It is true that IV. Constantinople,
holden in a .d . 869, was for a short while held as Ecumenical by both East

25

and West, and continues to be held as such by the Latin Church down to
this day, but it was soon rejected by the East and another synod of
Constantinople (879), which undid much of its work, has for the Greeks
taken its place. However the Easterns do not claim for this synod an
ecumenical character, but confine the number to seven.

The Councils of Lyons and Florence both fail of ecumenicity for the same
reason. At both the East was represented, and at each agreement was
arrived at, but neither agreement was subsequently accepted in the East,
and the decrees therefore have failed, as yet, of receiving ecumenical
acceptance.

We are left therefore with Seven Ecumenical Councils, neither more nor
less, and these are fully treated of in the pages that follow.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION

To the student of the ancient synods of the Church of Christ, the name of
William Beveridge must ever stand most illustrious; and his work on the
canons of the undivided Church as received by the Greeks, published at
Oxford in 1672, will remain a lasting glory to the Anglican Church, as the
"Concilia" of Labbe and Cossart, which appeared in Paris about the same
time, must ever redound to the glory of her sister, the Gallican Church.

Of the permanent value of Beveridge' s work there can be no greater
evidence than that to-day it is quoted all over the world over, and not only
are Anglicans proud of the bishop of St. Asaph, but Catholics and
Protestants, Westerns and Easterns alike quote him as an authority. In
illustration of this it will be sufficient to mention two examples, the most
extensive and learned work on the councils of our own day, that by the
Roman Catholic bishop Hefele, and the "Compendium of Canon Law," by
the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Greek Hungarian Church, in both of
which the reader will find constant reference to Beveridge' s "Synodicon."

This great work appeared in two volumes full folio, with the Greek text,
beautifully printed, but of course with the ligatures so perplexing to the
ordinary Greek reader of to-day. It should however be noted that the most

26

learned and interesting Prolegomena mEvvoSikov sive Pandectae
Canonum, as well as the Praefationem ad annotationes in Canones
Apostolicos, is reprinted as an Appendix to Vol. XII. of "TheTheological
Works of William Beveridge, sometime lord bishop of St. Asaph," in the
"Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology," (published at Oxford, 1848),
which also contains a reprint of the "Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Primitivae
vindicatus ac illustratus," of which last work I shall have something to say
in connection with the Apostolical Canons in the Appendix to this
volume.

Nothing could exceed the value of the Prolegomena and it is greatly to be
wished that this most unique preface were more read by students. It
contains a fund of out-of-the-way information which can be found
nowhere else collected together, and while indeed later research has thrown
some further light upon the subject, yet the main conclusions of Bishop
Beveridge are still accepted by the learned with but few exceptions. I have
endeavored, as far as possible to incorporate into this volume the most
important part of the learned bishop's notes and observations, but the real
student must consult the work itself. The reader will be interested to know
that the greatest English scholars of his day assisted Bishop Beveridge in
his work, among whom was John Pearson, the defender of the Ignatian
Epistles.

I think I cannot do better than set out in full the contents of the Synodicon
so that the student may know just what he will find in its pages:
"2a>vo8ikov sive Padectae Canonum SS. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab
Ecclesia Graeca receptorum; necnon Canonicorum SS. Patrum
Epistolarum: Una cum Scholiis Antiquorum singulis eorum annexis, et
scriptis aliis hue spectantibus; quorum pluima e Biblothecae Bodleianae
aliarumque MSS. codicibus nunc primum edita: reliqua cum iisdem MSS.
summa fide et diligentia collata. Totum Opus in duos Tomos divisum,
Guilielmus Beverigius, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter, Recensuit,
Prolegomenis munivit, et Annotationibus auxit. Oxonii, E Theatro
Sheldoniano. M.DC.LXXII."

Such is the title in full. I proceed to note the contents, premising that for
all the Greek a Latin translation is given in a parallel column:

27

Volume 1.

The Canons of the Holy Apostles, with the Ancient Epitome, and the

scholia of Balsamon, Zonarus and Aristenus.
The Canons of the Council of Nice with notes ut supra and so throughout.
The Canons of the Council of Constantinople.
The Canons of the Council of Ephesus.
The Canons of the Council of Chalcedon.
The Canons of the Sixth Council in Trullo.
The Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
The Canons of the Council of Constantinople called the First-and-Second

[in the time of Photius].
The Canons of the Council held in the Temple of Wisdom [which

confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Synod]. All these with notes as

before.
The Canons of the Council of Carthage [over which St. Cyprian, the

Martyr, presided] with the notes of Balsamon and Zonaras.
The Canons of the Council of Ancyra.
The Canons of the Council of Neocaesarea.
The Canons of the Council of Gangra.
The Canons of the Council of Antioch.
The Canons of the Council of Laodicea.
The Canons of the Council of Sardica. All these with full notes as before.

The Canons of the 217 blessed Fathers who met with Carthage, with the
epitome, and scholia by Balsamon and Aristenus, and on the actual canons
by Zonarus also. To these some epistles are added, likewise annotated.

Then, ending Volume I. is a version of Josephus Aegyptius's Arabic
Introduction and Paraphrase on the Canons of the first four General
Councils, bearing the following title:

Josephi Aegyptii Proaemia et Paraphrasis Arabica in Quatuor Preorum
Generalium Conciliorum Canones, interprete Guilielmo Beverigio, the
Arabic being given in the left hand column.

28

Volume 2.
Part 1.

The Canons of Dionysius of Alexandria, with the scholia of Balsamon and

Zonaras.
The Canons of Peter of Alexandria.
The Canons of Gregory Thaumaturgus.
The Canons of St. Athanasius. All these with scholia as above.
The Canons of St. Basil, with the Ancient Epitome and scholia of

Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus.
The Canons of St. Gregory Nyssen with scholia of Balsamon.
The Canonical Answer of Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria.
The Canons of Theophilus of Alexandria.
The Canonical Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria.
Extracts from the metrical poems of St. Gregory Theologus, concerning

what books of the Old and New Testaments should be read.
Extracts from the iambics of St. Amphilochius the bishop to Seleucus on

the same subject.
The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Epistle of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Adrian, Pope of

Rome, concerning simony. All of these with Balsamon' s scholia.

Part 2.

The Synopsis by Alexius Aristenus of the letters called Canonical.

The questions of Certain Monks and the Answers sent by the Synod of
Constantinople. With notes by Balsamon.

The Alphabetical Syntagma of all that is contained in the Sacred and
Divine Canons, by Mathhew Blastares, the Monk.

Concerning the Holy and Ecumenical Synod which restored Photius, the
most holy Patriarch to the See of Constantinople, and dissolved the
scandal of the two Churches of Old and New Rome; [Styled by some the
"Eighth Ecumenical Synod."] to which is added the Letter of the Blessed
John Pope of Rome to the most holy Photius, Archbishop of
Constantinople.

29

An Index Rerum et Verborum of both volumes.
Beveridge's own Notes on the Canons of the Councils.
An Index Rerum et Verborum of the Notes.

Such are the contents of Bishop Beveridge's great work, and it is
impossible to exaggerate its value. But it will be noticed that it only covers
the disciplinary action of the Councils, and does not give the dogmatic
decrees, these being excluded from the author's plan.

Before leaving the collections of the canons we must mention the great
work of Justellus (the Preface and notes of which are found reprinted in
Migne's Pat. Lot., Tom. LXVIL); Canonum Ecclesiae Universae Gr. et
Lot. Cum Praefatione Notisque Christoph. Justelli.

The author was counsellor and secretary to the King of France, was born
in Paris 1580, and died in 1649. After his death there appeared at Paris in
1661 a work in 2 volumes folio, with the following title: Bibliotheca juris
canonici vetus...ex antiquis codicibus MSS. Bibliothecae Christopheri
Justelli.. ..Opera et studio Gul. Voelli et Henrici Justelli.

The Church in Paris had the honor of having among its Cathedral clergy
the first scholar who published a collection of the Acts of the councils.
James Merlin was Canon and Grand Penitentiary of the Metropolitan
Church, and the first edition of his work he put out in 1523 in one volume
folio. This work passed through several editions within a few years, but
soon gave place to fuller connections.

In 1538, the Belgian Franciscan Peter Crabbe (Pierre Grable) issued at
Cologne an enlarged collection in two volumes, and the second edition in
1551 was enlarged to three folio volumes. Besides these, there was
Lawrence Surius's still more complete collection, published in 1557 (4
vols, folio), and the Venice collection compiled by Domenick Bollanus,
O.P., and printed by Dominic Nicolini, 1585 (5 vols, folio).

But the renowned collection of Professor Severin Binius surpassed all its
predecessors, and its historical and critical notes are quoted with respect
even to-day. The first edition, in four volumes folio, was issued at Cologne
in 1606, and later editions, better than the first, in 1618 and 1636. This

30

last edition was published at Paris in nine volumes, and made use of the
Roman collection.

To the learned Jesuit Sirmond belongs the chief glory of having compiled
this Roman collection, and the "Introduction" is from his pen. The work
was undertaken by the authority of Pope Paul V., and much of the Greek
text, copied from MSS. in the Vatican Library, was now for the first time
given to the reading public. This collection contains only the Ecumenical
Councils according to the Roman method of reckoning, and its compilation
took from 1608 to 1612.

No collection appeared from this date until the "Collectio Regia," a
magnificent series of thirty-seven volumes folio, at the royal press at Paris
in 1644. But while it was superb in get up, it left much to be desired when
looked at critically, for many faults of the Roman edition already pointed
out by Sirmond were not corrected.

And now we have reached the time when the first really great Concilia
appeared, which while only filling seventeen volumes in folio was yet far
more complete — Hefele says twenty-five per cent, more complete —
than the great Collectio Regia just described. This edition was the work of
Philip Labbe (Labbeus in Latin), S.J., and was completed after his death in
1667, by Father Gabriel Cossart of the same Society — "Almost all the
French servants quote from this edition of Labbe' s with Baluze's
supplement," and I have followed their lead, availing myself of the
corrections made by later editors. The title of the edition used in this work
is: "Sacrasancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem exacta. Studio Philip.
Labbei et Gabr. Cossartii, Soc. Jesu Presbyterorum. Lutetiae Parisiorum.
MDCLXXI. Cum Privilegio Regis Christianissimi."

Anything more perfect than these precious volumes it would be hard to
conceive of, and while of course they contain the errors of chronology et
cetera of their age, yet their general accuracy and marvelous completeness
leave them even to-day as the greatest of the great, although the later
edition of Hardouin is more often used by English and American scholars,
and is the one quoted by Pope Benedict XIV. in his famous work De
Synodo Diaecesana. Hardouin' s edition did certainly correct many of the
faults of Labbe and Cossart, yet had itself many faults and defects which
are pointed out by Salmon in a long list, although he fully acknowledges

31

the value of Hardouin's improvements and additions. Perhaps, not
unnaturally, as a Professor at the Sorbonne, he preferred Labbe and
Cossart. It may not be amiss to add that Hardouin was very anti-Gallican
and ultramontane.

The Dominician Archbishop of Lucca, Mansi, in 1759, put out his
"Concilia" in thirty-one volumes folio at Florence, styled on the title-page
"the most ample" edition ever printed, and claiming to contain all the old
and much new matter. It was never finished, only reaching to the Xvth
century, has no indices, and (says Hefele) "is very inferior to Hardouin in
accuracy. The order of the subjects in the later volumes is sometimes not
sufficiently methodical, and is at variance with the chronology."

I shall now present the reader with some bibliographical notes which I
extract verbatim from Hefele (Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I., p.

74).

Among the numerous works on the history of the councils, the most
useful to consult are:

1. John Cabassutius, Notitia ecclesiastica historiarum concilorum et
canonum. Lyons 1680, folio. Very often reprinted.

2. Hermant, Histoire des Conciles, Rouen 1730, four volumes, 8vo.

3. Labbe, Synopsis historica Conciliorum, in vol. I. of his Collection of
Councils.

4. Edm. Richer, Historia conciliorum generalium (Paris, 1680), three
volumes, 4to. Reprinted in 8vo. at Cologne.

5. Charles Ludovic Richard, Analysis conciliorum generalium et
particularium. Translated from French into Latin by Dalmasus. Four
volumes, 8vo, Augsburg, 1778.

6. Christ. Wilh. Franz W alch, Entwurf einer vollstandigen Historie der
Kirchenversammlungen, Leipzig, 1759.

7. Fabricus, Bibliotheca Graeca, edit. Harless. t.xii., p. 422 sqq., in which
is contained an alphabetical table of all the councils, and an estimate of the
value of the principal collections.

32

8. Alletz, Concilien-Lexikon, translated from French into German by
Father Maurus Disch, a Benedictine and professor at Augsburg, 1843.

9. Dictionnaire universal et complet des Conciles, tant generaux que

particuliers, etc., redige par M. l'abbe P , pretre du Diocese de Paris,

published by the Abbe Migne (Paris, 1846), two volumes, 4to.

In the great works on ecclesiastical history — for example, in the Nouvelle
Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, by El. Dupin, and the Historia
Literaria of Cave, and particularly in the excellent Histoire des Auteurs
Sacres, by Remi Ceillier — we find matter relating to the history of the
councils. Salmon, 1. c, p. 387, and Walch in his Historie der
Kirchenversammlungen, pp. 48-67, have pointed out a large number of
works on the history of the councils. There are also very valuable
dissertations on the same subject in —

1. Christian Lupus, Synodorum generalium ac provincialium decreta et
canones, scholiis, notis ac historia actorum dissertatione illustrata, Louv.,
1665; Brussels, 1673; five volumes, 4to.

2. Lud. Thomassin, Dissertationum in Concilia gneralia et particularia,
t.L, Paris, 1667; reprinted in Rocaberti, Bibl. pontificia, tr. XV.

3. Van Espen, Tractatus Historicus exhibens scholia in omnes canones
conciliorum, etc., in his complete works.

4. Barth. Caranza has written a very complete and useful abstract of the
acts of the councils in his Summa Conciliorum, which has often been
re-edited.

5. George Daniel Fuchs, deacon of Stuttgart, has, in his Bibliothek der
Kirchenversammlungen, four volumes, Leipsic, 1780-1784, given German
translations and abstracts of the acts of the councils in the fourth and fifth
centuries.

6. Francis Salmon, Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne, has published an
Introduction to the Study of the Councils, in his Traite de I' Etude des
Conciles et de leurs collections, Paris, 1724, in 4to, which has often been
reprinted.

33

To these I would add the following:

1. Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique. This work in many volumes, part of
which has been translated into English, is most useful and accurate, and
contains a resume of the separate canons and definitions as well as the
history of the proceedings.

2. Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum quae de rebus fidei
et morum a Coniliis Ecumenicis et Summis Pontificibus emanarunt. A
most useful handbook in the original.

3. Hefele, Conciliengeschicte. This, the most recent work upon the subject,
is also in some respects the most satisfactory, and it is a matter of real
regret that only the first part of the work, down to the end of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, has been translated into English. The last volume of
the author's revised edition appeared in 1890. The first volume of the first
edition was published in 1855, and the seventh and last in 1874. The entire
book was translated into French some years ago (with full indices) by M.
l'abbe Goschlerand and M. l'abbe Delarc (Paris, Adrien le Clere et Cie). It
should in fairness, however, be remarked that Bishop Hefele was one of
the minority who opposed the opportuneness of the definition of Papal
infallibility at the Vatican Council, and while indeed afterwards he
submitted to the final decree, yet he has been a somewhat suspected
person since to those who held extreme views on this doctrine.

So as I am aware no serious work has been done upon the councils by an
writer using the English tongue in recent times, with the exception of the
useful Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, by Canon
Wm. Bright.

The following is a list of the English translations which I have consulted or
followed:

John Johnson, The Clergyman' s Vade-mecum (London, 2d Ed., 1714).

Wm. A. Hammond, The Definitions of Faith and Canons of Discipline of
the Six Ecumenical Councils, etc.

William Lambert, The Canons of the First Four General Councils of the
Church and those of the Early Greek Synods (London, s.d. Preface dated
1868).

34

John Fulton, Index Canonum. [This work ends with the Council of

Chalcedon.]

(New York, 1872. 3d Ed., 1892.)

John Mendham, The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nice
(London, s.d.).

H.R. Percival, The Decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Appendix I.
to A Digest of Theology (London, Masters, 1893).

It only remains that I mention two other works.

Dr. Pusey's book, The Councils of the Church from the Council of
Jerusalem, A.D. 51 to the Council of Constantinople, 381 (1857) should
not be omitted, and certainly the reader' s attention should be called to that
most accurate and valuable volume by Herm. Theod. Brans, Canones
Apostolorum et Conciliorum Veterum Selecti (Berolini, 1839), which has
been constantly referred to in preparing this work.

35

APPENDED NOTE ON THE EASTERN
EDITIONS OF SYNODICAL LITERATURE

From the presses of the East, especially those at Athens, a number of
editions more or less complete of the Greek text of the Canons of the
Ecumenical and of the Local Councils have been issued, and the notes of
Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus have been added in some cases.
Professor Bolotoff writes however that so far as Greek literature on the
subject is concerned, with the exception of purely topographical
researches in the environs of Constantinople, it is simply putting into
Greek what was originally in German.

The Russian Church has done somewhat more and as will be seen from the
following table, some attempts have been made at providing scholia, but
when the scheme of this present work was shewn him, Professor Bolotoff
said: "We have nothing analogous to this undertaking in Russia." The
learned professor remarks that all the best Russian literature upon the
subject is contained in magazine articles, especially those of Professor
Zaozersky of the Moscow Theological Academy, and of Professor A.S.
Pavloff, of the University of Moscow; he mentions also the latter' s article
in the Orthodox Review, and adds that "An Essay on a Course of Church
Legislation," by Joann Smolensk (St. Petersburg, 1851) should be referred
to.

36

A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX OF THE PRINTED

EDITIONS OF THE CANONS OF THE APOSTLES

AND OF THE COUNCILS IN THE SLAVONIC AND

RUSSIAN LANGUAGES

(Prepared by Nicolas Glubokoffski, Professor of the Chair of the Holy
Scriptures of the New Testament in the Ecclesiastical Academy of St.

Petersburgh.)

In the orthodox Russian Church, editions of the Conciliar Canons and
Decrees have only been issued under the immediate disposition and
sanction of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and, in fact, are amongst
those things which it is not within the competence of private scholars to
undertake. Such editions therefore have been published in Russia only in
accordance with practical requirements.

1 . The earliest printed edition of the afore-mentioned canons appeared in
the Slavonic (=7tr|SdXiov), the printing of which was commenced at
Moscow, on October 7th, 1649, under the Patriarch Joseph of Moscow,
and was finished on July 1, 1650; but the Patriarch Nicon caused it to be
submitted to a Council for revision, in consequence of which certain pages
were reprinted and inserted afresh into it. Thereupon copies of this
"Kormchaja" were distributed for use amongst the churches, and came into
general circulation not earlier than the year 1653. The second edition of the
"Kormchaja" appeared in 1787, after a revision under the Metropolitan
Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburgh, and was followed by others
(e.g., those of 1804, 1816, and 1823) without any alterations of
importance. The latest editions differ from that of Nicon in certain
particulars, but these particulars do not concern the ecclesiastical Canons,
which are placed in the first part of the "Kormchaja" and include the 85
Apostolic Canons, the decrees of the sixteen councils (of Nicaea, Ancyra,
Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, the 2d, 3d, and 4th Ecumenical,
Sardica, Carthage, Constantinople under Nectarius, in Trullo, A.D. 692, the

37

7th Ecumenical, the First-and-Second [council of Constantinople] and that
in the church of St. Sophia) and the Canons of the 13 Holy Fathers.

2. In the printed "Kormchaja" the canons are set forth, not in their full
text, but in a shortened from which sometimes gives but a very insufficient
representation of the contents of the original. On this account attempts at
full translations were made many years back, but these never appeared in
print. It was not until 1839 that such an edition as this was put forth by
the Holy Synod at St. Petersburgh, under the Title: "The Book of the
Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the Holy Ecumenical and local Councils,
the first impression in the 7347th year from the creation of this world, and
the 1839th from the Birth in the flesh of God the Word, indict. 12." In this
edition there are 4 unnumbered leaved and 455 numbered pages. On each
page there are two columns, for the original text and the new translation of
the whole text into the Slavonic respectively, but without the
commentaries of the Byzantine Canonists; occasionally, but rarely, notes
based upon Zonaras or Balsamon are given, which are not always
historically accurate (for instance, that to the 10th Canon of Ancyra, the
3d of Sardica the 4th of Carthage, and the one which deals with the
First-and-Second Council of a.d . 861) while in some places the text itself
is not correct (for instance, in the 13th Canon of the 1st Ecumenical
Council). This "Book of the Canons" subsequently went through the
following editions: the 2d, printed in Moscow at the Synodal Press in
1862, in folio 8 leaves + 672 + 74 numbered pages + 1 leaf + 59 pages,
with the Slavonic text only; the 4th, ibid in 1874, in octavo, 4 leaves + 455
pages + 2 leaves + 104 + 4 pages, also with the Slavonic text only; the 5th,
ibid, in 1886, in folio, 3 leaves + 395 + 42 pages + 1 leaf, again with
Slavonic text only.

3. The "Book of Canons" by no means represent an authorized textus
receptus, and after its publication, the Holy Synod itself not unfrequently
introduced the Canons as given in the Slavonic edition of the "Kormchaja
Kniga" into its edicts, and moreover recommended the Athenian Edition of
the "Syntagma" for all the ecclesiastico-educational establishments. This
opened the way for a new work, which, with the permission of the
supreme ecclesiastical authority, was undertaken by the Moscow "Society
of Amateurs of Spiritual Enlightenment." The announcement of this was
made in No. 3 of the "Moscow Diocesan Church Gazette" of the year

38

1875, whilst in the same year in the January number of the Moscow
Journal, "Lectures delivered in the Society of Amateurs of Spiritual
Enlightenment," the "programme" of the edition itself was printed (pages
79-90 in the section devoted to bibliography). In criticism of it the
Professor of Canonical Law in the University of Novorossiisk, Alexis
Stepanovich Pavloff (who died on August 16, 1898, as Professor of the
University of Moscow) wrote "Notes on the programme of an edition, in
a Russian translation of the Canons of the Church with Commentaries" in
the sixteenth volume of "Memoirs of the Imperial University of
Novorossiisk" (Odessa, 1875), pages 1-17 of the Appendix (and in a
separate pamphlet), which was afterwards reprinted with certain additions
in the Moscow Journal, "Orthodox Review," of April, 1876 (pages
730-746), under the title: "A new translation of the Commentaries upon
the canons of the church." To these criticisms the Professor of
Ecclesiastical Law in the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, Alexander
Theodorovich Lavroff, wrote a reply in "Lectures delivered in the Society
of Amateurs of Spiritual Enlightenment" (for the year 1877, part 2, pages
158-194), entitled "A printed letter to Alexis Stepanovich Pavloff." Thus
the plan of the edition gradually took shape. It was first printed in the
Appendices to the Journal "Lectures in the Society, etc.," and
subsequently was published separately in octavo, in the following parts
(A) I. "The Canons of the Holy Apostles with Commentaries" in two
editions — Moscow, 1876, (from "Lectures," 1875, pages 1-163) 4+12
+ 175 pages, and ibid, 1887, 5-12 + 163 pages; II. "Canons of the Holy
Ecumenical Councils with Commentaries" (from "Lectures" 1875, pages
165-325; 1876, pages 329-8=680; 1877, pages 891-900), in two parts: 1st
"The Canons of the Councils I.-IV.," Moscow, 1877, 260 pages; 2d. "The
Canons of Councils V.-VIL," ibid. 736 pages; (B) "The Canons of the
Holy Local Councils with Commentaries," also in two parts (from
"Lectures" 1877, pages 900-1066; 1878, pages 1067-1306; 1879, pages
1307-1410): the 1st (The Canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea,
Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, and Sardica) Moscow, 1880, 359 pages; the 2d
(The Canons of the Councils of Carthage [with the letters to Pope
Boniface and to Pope Celestine], Constantinople, the First-and-Second,
and that in the Temple of the Wisdom of the Word of God) ibid., 1881,
876 pages; (C) "The Canons of the Holy Fathers with Commentaries,"
ibid., 1884, 626 pages. Together with these is separate "Index of subjects

39

contained in the edition of the Canons of the Apostles, Councils and Holy
Fathers with Commentaries," Moscow, 1888, 58 pages in octavo. The
Greek text of the canons follows the edition 2a)vtocyu.oc raw Ge'icov kou
tepcov kocvovcov ... bub T. A. P&Mr| koci M. TloTXr\ AGrrvnoiv
1852-1854, and alongside of it is placed a literal Slavonic translation, after
which follows a Russian translation of the Commentaries of the Byzantine
Canonists (Zonaras, Aristenus, Balsamon), and the text and commentaries
of the Slavonic "Kormchaja;" all this is accompanied by introductions and
explanations of all sorts (historical, philological, etc.). This edition is
rightly considered by specialists tob eof very great value from a scientific
point of view. Professor A.Th. Lavroff (who became a monk under the
name Alexis, and died Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna) was its chief
editor and had most to do with it, but many others took part in the work,
and amongst these Professor A.S. Pavloff.

4. The only Russian translation of the canons which exists is contained in
the publications of the Ecclesiastical Academy of Kazan: (a) "The Acts of
the Ecumenical Councils translated into Russian," 7 volumes. Kazan,
1859-1878 (some of these volumes have run into a second edition) and (b)
"Acts of the nine local councils translated into Russian," 1 volume, Kazan,
1878. This translation was made under the direction of the Holy Synod,
and the Canons are reproduced in it according to the text of the Acts of the
Councils.

From the outline here presented of the printed editions of the Canons of
the Councils it will be seen that, within the limits of their practical
applicability, they are reverenced as the source of the operative law in the
Russian orthodoxy church, and therefore for her it is only the authoritative
Byzantine commentaries which have any particular importance. There are
works upon these by V. Demidoff, "The character and significance of the
commentaries upon the Canonical Codex of the Greek Church — of
Aristenus, Zonaras, and Balsamon," in the "Orthodox Review," vol. ii. of
1888, and of Professor V. A. Narbekojf, of Kazan, "The commentaries of
Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Photius," Kazan, 1889, and of
Professor M. E. Krasnozhen, of Jurieff (Dorpat) "The Commentators of
the Canonical Codex of the Eastern Church: Aristenus, Zonaras, and
Balsamon." Moscow, 1892.

40

No separate scientific commentaries upon all the canons of the councils
exist in Russian literature, but they are described, and explained in courses
of Ecclesiastical law (of the Archimandrite John [who, when he died, was
Bishop of Smolensk] of Professors N.S. Suvoroff, T. S. Berdnikoff. N.A.
Lashkareff, M.A. Ostroumoff) in our words upon the history of the
Ecumenical Councils (by Bishop John, and Professor Alexis Petrovich
Lebedeff), and in monographs dealing with Canon Law and Church
History. As far as a critical edition of the original text of the canons is
concerned, there is a learned and useful article (upon a book by Fr.
Lanchert, Die Kanones usw., Freiberg I. Br. und Leipsig, 1896), by Vasili
Vasilievich Bolotoff, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the St.
Peterburgh Ecclesiastical Academy in the "Christian Reading," vol. iv. for
1896, pp. 178-195.

41

EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN
LAW AND ITS RELATION TO THE CANON LAW

The foregoing bibliographical outline would be entirely incomplete did I
not give the reader at least a sketch of how those canons adopted by the
various councils gradually won admission to the law-code of the Empire,
and how that code itself came into being. For those wishing to study the
matter in detail I would name as the most recent authorities upon the
Roman Law, Mr. Muirhead, who has published with additions and notes
his article on the subject in the "Encyclopedia Britannica," and Mr. Bury's
new edition of Gibbon's Rome just being issued with most learned notes.

But neither of these writers has put the matter exactly as I desire for this
purpose, and I have therefore been forced to seek elsewhere the
information I now lay before the reader.

The study of Jurisprudence did not form a separate department among the
ancient Greeks, but among the Romans it was quite otherwise, and a very
elaborate system was developed, so elaborate as to demand the care of a
special class of men, who devoted themselves to this business alone and
handed down to their successors a constantly increasing mass of legal
matter.

When Greece fell under the Roman yoke the laws of the victor were
imposed upon the vanquished, but even then the Greeks did not take to
legal studies. In fact not until the seat of the Empire was removed to
Constantinople did the East become a center of jurisprudence or the
residence of the chief legal experts. In the whole period before the fourth
century of our era we know of but one barrister who wrote in Greek, and
he came from the West, Herennius Modestinus. He was a disciple of
Ulpian and preceptor to the Emperor Maximian the Younger.

From the time of Hadrian tot hat of Alexander Severus the influence of the
legal schools of Rome had been paramount. The Emperors consulted them
and asked them to decide different points. But after the death of Alexander
this custom fell into entire disuse, and the Emperors themselves decided

42

the matters formerly entrusted to the lawyers. After this time the Imperial
Constitutions became the chief source of Roman law. It is only in the time
of Constantine the Great that we find once again the lawyers rising into
prominence and a flourishing school at Beyroot in Syria. It was at this
time that the Imperial Constitutions or Edicts were first collected, for until
then they existed only in detached documents. This collection was made
by two lawyers, Gregory or Gregorian, and Hermogenes. Gregory's
collection contains the laws set forth from the time of Hadrian to
Constantine, and Hermogenes wrote a supplement. Although this was but
a private enterprise, yet it was cited in the courts of law, just as Lord
Lyndwood' s Provinciate is with us to-day.

It is interesting to note that it was about the same time that the first
attempt was made to collect the ecclesiastical canons, and so the Civil Law
and the Canon Law (as we know them in after times) had their rise about
the same period.

The law of the Empire was not, however, to be left to private and
unofficial action, but by the care of Theodosius the Younger its first
official collection was made. This prince directed eight men learned in the
law to gather into one body of laws all the Imperial Constitutions
published since the last included in the collections of Gregory and
Hermogenes. This is the "Theodosian Code," and contains the laws set
forth by Constantine and his successors. It was promulgated in 438 in the
East, and received by the then Emperor of the West, Valentinian III. To
this were subsequently added such laws as each set forth, under the title of
"New Constitutions."

The Emperor Justinian determined still further to simplify the attaining of
judicial decisions. It is true that the making of the legal collections referred
to had added greatly to the ease of determining the law in any given case,
but there was a source of great confusion in the endless number of legal
decisions which by custom had acquired the force of law, and which were
by no means always consistent between themselves; these were the
famous responsa juisperitorum. To clear up this difficulty was no small
task, but the Emperor went about it in the most determined fashion and
appointed a commission, consisting of Tribonian and ten other experts, to
make a new collection of all the imperial constitutions from Hadrian to his

43

own day. This is the famous Justinian Code, which was promulgated in
529, and abrogated all previous collections.

This, however, was not sufficient to remove the difficulty, and Tribonian
next, together with sixteen lawyers, spent three years in making extracts
from the great mass of decisions of the ancient jurists, filling as they did
the contradictions. When the work was finished it appeared to the world
as the "Pandects," because it was intended to contain all there was to be
said upon the subject. It is also known as the "Digest." This work was set
forth in 533 and from that time such of the former decisions as were not
incorporated ceased to have any force.

It must however be remembered that, while this was the case, all the
decisions contained in the Pandects did not obtain the force of law. The
Pandects are not a code of laws, but a system of public jurisprudence
composed by public authority. To the Pandects were added by the
Emperor two ordinances, the first to forbid any copyist to write them in
an abbreviated form; and the second forbidding commentators to treat
them in anything but their literal sense.

While this work was in progress some points were so complicated and
obscure that the Emperor had to be appealed to, and his writings in these
particulars are the origin of the "Fifty Decisions."

At the same time was prepared the "Institutes," containing the elements of
the whole Roman law.

Later, new laws having been made, the Code had to be reviewed; the
former edition was abrogated in 534, and a new one set forth with the title
"Codex repetitae praelectionis."

The last of Justinian's labors in the field of jurisprudence (if indeed they
are not collected after his death) are his "Novels," a series of imperial
constitutions issued between 535 and 559 (Neocpoci Aiax6c^ei<;). There
are one hundred and sixty-eight of these Novels, but the ancient glosses
only know ninety-seven, and the rest have been added since, as they have
been found.

Such is the origin of the Corpus Juris Civilis, and its history needed to be
set forth in this place on account of its close connection with the Corpus

44

Juris Canonici. In the foregoing I have followed M. Schoell in his
admirable Histoire de la Litterature Grecque Profane, to which I am also
chiefly indebted for the following notes upon the jurists of the sixth and
ensuing centuries.

A work which is often looked upon as the origin of the Canon Law was
composed by a lawyer of Antioch, somewhere near the middle of the sixth
century. This jurist was the Church of John of Antioch, surnamed
Scholasticus. He was representative or apocrisiarius of the Church of
Antioch at Constantinople, and afterwards was made Patriarch of that see,
over which he ruled from 564 until his death in 578. While still a simple
priest at Antioch he made his Collection of the Canons of the Councils.

"He was not the first who conceived the idea of such a work. Some
writers, resting upon a passage in Socrates, have been of opinion that this
honor belonged to Sabinus, bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace, at the beginning
of the fifth century; but Socrates is not speaking of a collection of canons
at all, but of the synodal acts, of the letter written by or addressed to the
synods. If, however, Sabinus did not make a collection of canons, it is
certain nevertheless that before John of Antioch there existed one, for he
himself cites it many times, although he does not name the authors."

:"In gathering together thus the canons of the councils John of Antioch did
not form a complete body of ecclesiastical law. By his Novel CXLL,
Justinian had indeed given to the canons of the Church the force of law,
but he himself published a great number of constitutions upon Church
matters. Now it was necessary to harmonize these constitutions and
canons, and to accomplish this feat was the object of a second work
undertaken by John of Antioch, to which he gave the title of Nomocanon
(Nojiok&vcov), a word which from that time has served to designate any
collection of this sort."

Bury says, "In the troubles of the 7th century the study of law, like many
other things, declined, and in the practical administration of justice the
prescriptions of the Code and Digest were often ignored or modified by
the alien precepts of Christianity. The religion of the Empire had exerted
but very slight influence — no fundamental influence, we may say — on
the Justinian law. Leo III., the founder of the Syrian (vulgarly called
Isaurian) dynasty, when he had restored the Empire after a generation of

45

anarchy, saw the necessity of legislation to meet the changed
circumstances of the time. The settlements of foreigners — Slavs and
Mardaites — in the provinces of the Empire created an agarian question,
which he dealt with in his Agrarian Code. The increase of Salvonic and
Saracenic piracy demanded increased securities for maritime trade, and this
was dealt with in a Navigation Code. But it was not only for special
relations that Leo made laws; he legislated also, and in an entirely new
way, for the general relations of life. He issued a law book ( in a.d . 740 in
the name of himself and his son Constantine), which changed and modified
the Roman law, as it had been fixed by Justinian. The Ecloga, as it is
called, may be described as a Christian law book. It is a deliberate attempt
to change the legal system of the Empire by an application of Christian
principles. Examples, to illustrate its tendency, will be given below. The
horror in which the iconoclasts were held on account of their heresy by the
image-worshippers, cast discredit upon all their works. This feeling had
something to do with the great reaction, which was inaugurated by Basil I.,
against their legal reforms. The Christian Code of Leo prevailed in the
empire for less than a century and a half; and then, under the auspices of
Basil, the Roman law of Justinian was (partially) restored. In legal activity
the Basilian epoch faintly reflected the epoch of Justinian itself. A
handbook of extracts from the Institutes, Digest, Code, and Novels, was
published in A .D . 879, entitled the Prochiron, to diffuse a knowledge of the
forgotten system. But the great achievement of the Basilican epoch is the
'Basilica' — begun under Basil, completed under Leo VI. — a huge
collection of all the laws of the Empire, not only those still valid, but those
which had become obsolete. It seems that two commissions of experts
were appointed to prepare the material for this work. One of these
commissions compiled the Prochiron by the way, and planned out the
Basilica in sixty Books. The other commission also prepared a handbook
called the Epanagogue, which was never actually published (though a
sketch of the work is extant), and planned out the Basilica in forty Books.
The Basilica, as actually published, are arranged in sixty Books, compiled
from the materials prepared by both commissions.

"The Basilian revival of Justinianean law was permanent; and it is outside
our purpose to follow the history further, except to note the importance
of the foundation of a school of law at Constantinople in the 1 1th century

46

by the Emperor Constantine IX. The law enacting the institution of this
school, under the direction of a salaried Nomophylax, is extant. John
Xiphilin (see above) was the first director. This foundation may have
possibly had some influence on the institution of the school at Bologna
half a century later."

I take from Schoell the following description of the "Basilica":

"The 'Basilica' are a body of Roman law in the Greek language, extracted
from the Institutes, the Pandects, the Codes and the Novels of Justinian as
well as from the Imperial Constitutions posterior to that prince; also
extracts from the interpretations of such jurists as had wona fixed
authority in the courts, and the canons of the councils. Here is found
together the civil and the ecclesiastical law of the Greeks, these two laws
having been in an intimate union by reason of the authority which the
Emperors exercised over the Church; on the other hand, in the West there
was formed step by step a canon law separate from the civil law, and
having a different source."

Such, then, were the "Basilica," but what is most singular is that this
collection was not given the force of law, neither by Leo VI. nor by
Constantine VI., although it was prepared at their order, under their
authority, and was written in the language which was spoken by their
subjects. The Justinian code of law, although in Latin, still continued to be
the only authority in the entire East. An anonymous writer prepared an
Epitome of the Basilica, digested into Alphabetical order, and beginning
with "Of the Orthodox faith of Christians."

In 883 Photius published a "Syntagma canonum" and a "Nomocanon"
with the title npoKocvdiv, because it was placed before the canons. This
last work at the command of Constantine VI. was revised and soon took
the place of the Nomocanon of John of Antioch, over which work it had
the advantage of being more recent and of being digested in better order. It
citing the canons, only the title are given; but the text of the civil laws
appears in full. "As in the Eastern Church the influence of the imperial
authority increased at the expense of that of the councils, and as these
princes made ecclesiastical affairs a principal part of their government, it
came to pass that the Nomocanon of Photius became of more frequent and
more necessary use than his Syntagma, [which contained the actual text of

47

the canons of the councils down to 880]. Many commentators busied
themselves with it, while the collection of the councils was neglected.
Thus it has happened that the Nomocanon has become the true foundation
of the eccloesiastical law of the East."

But while this is true, yet there were not lacking commentators upon the
Canon law and of the three chiefest of these some notice must be taken in
this place. As I have already pointed out it is to Bishop Beveridge that we
owe the publication not only of Photius's Collection of Canons which are
found in his "2a>voSik6v sive Pandectae," but also of the scholia of all
three of these great commentators, Zonaras, Aristenus, and Balsamon, and
from his most learned Prolegomena to the same work I have chiefly drawn
the following facts, referring the curious reader to the introduction itself
for further particulars.

John Zonaras was probably the same person who wrote the Byzantine
History which bears his name. He flourished under Alexis Comnenus, and
enjoyed the high office of Grand Drungarius Viglae (ApoDyyocpioc; xr\c,
BiyXr|<;) and Chief of the Clerks. After some years of secular life he retired
to a monastery and devoted himself to literary pursuits. While here, at the
command of his superiors, and moved by the persuasion of his friends, he
wrote that great book which has made his fame, which he entitled 'An
Exposition of the Sacred and Divine Canons, as well those of the holy and
venerable Apostles, as also those of the sacred Ecumenical Synods, and
those of the local or particular councils, and those of the rest of the Holy
Fathers; by the labor of John Zonaras the monk, who was formerly Grand
Drungarius Viglae and Chief of the Clerks."

One of the greatest peculiarities of this work, and one which distinguishes
it very markedly from the later work of Balsamon upon the same subject,
is that Zonaras confines himself strictly to the canon law, and rarely
makes any reference to the civil law whatever; and in such canons as bear
no addition to the civil law Balsamon often adopts Zonaras 's notes
without change or addition.

These commentaries were first brought to light by John Quintin, a
professor of canon law at Paris, who published a Latin translation of the
scholia upon the Apostolic Canons. This was in 1558. In 1618 Antonias
Salmatia edited his commentaries on the canons of the Councils done into

48

Latin. To the Latin version the Paris press added the Greek texts from the
MS. codex in the Royal Library and printed it in 1618. In 1622 the same
press issued his commentaries upon the Epistles of the Holy Fathers,
together with those of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Macarius of Egypt, and
Basil. But Beveridge collected them in his Oxford Edition for the first time
into one work; preparing a somewhat critical text by collation with some
manuscripts he found at home.

The second of these great Greek scholiasts is Alexis Aristenus. As
Beveridge points out, he must have flourished before or at the same time
as Balsamon, for this latter speaks of him in high terms of commendation
in his scholion on the Sixth of the Apostolic Canons, describing him as xov
-uTtepTiu-ov. Ariestenus was Nomophylax, Orphanotrophe and
Protecdekas, or chief of the Syndics of the Communes, called Ecdics
("EkSikoi). He wrote the excellent series of notes upon the Epitomes of
the Canons which are given the reader in Beveridge' s Pradects. Schoell
says that it is an error to attribute to him the "Extract of the Ancient
Ecclesiastical Laws," "which is none of his." Aristenus was Grand
Economus of the Church of Constantinople and a man of great distinction;
and his opinion was sought after and his decision followed even when in
opposition to one of the Patriarchs, viz.: Nicephorus of Jerusalem.

Beveridge was the first to print Aristenus' s Scholia, and he did so from
four MSS., in England, for a description of which I refer the reader to the
bishop's prolegomena.

Theodore Balsamon is the last of the three great Greek scholiasts. He
flourished in the time of the Emperor Isaac Angelus and bore the title of
Patriarch of Antioch, although at that time the city was in the hands of the
Latins and had been so since 1 100. He was looked upon as the greatest
jurist of his times both in ecclesiastical and civil matter. Somewhere about
the year 1 150, he wrote by the order of Manuel Comnenus a series of
"Scholia upon the Nomocanon of Photius," and another set styled
"Scholia upon the Canons of the Apostles, of the Councils and of the
Fathers of the Church;" he also prepared a "Collection of [imperial]
Constitutions upon ecclesiastical matter," in three books, which has been
published (by Lowenklaw) at Frankfort, 1595, under the title "Paratitles."
There remains also a great number of his opinions on cases presented to

49

him, notably his "answers to sixty-four canonical questions by Mark,
Patriarch of Alexandria."

These most learned writings were unknown and forgotten, at least in the
West, until they were set forth in a Latin translation during the time the
Council of Trent was sitting, in 1561, and not till 1620 did the Greek text
appear in the Paris edition of that date. But this text was imperfect and
corrupt, and Beveridge produced a pure text from an Oxford MS., with
which he compared several others. Moreover in his Pandects he amended
the Latin text as well as numberless particulars. For further particulars of
the bibliography of the matter see Beveridge.

It may not be amiss to add that abundant proof of the high esteem in
which Balsamon was held is found in contemporary authors, and no words
can give an exaggerated idea of the weight of his opinion on all legal
matters, religious and profane; his works were undertaken at the command
of the Emperor and of the Patriarch, and were received with an unmixed
admiration.

In the thirteenth century a certain Chumnus who had been Nomophylax
and was afterwards elevated to the Archiepiscopal chair of Thessalonica
wrote a little book on the "Degrees of Relationship."

In the fourteenth century we find Matthew Blastares writing, "An
Alphabetical Table" of the contents of the canons of the councils, and of
the laws of the Emperors.

And in the same century we find Constantine Harmenopulus, who was
born in 1320. He was, when thirty years of age, a member of the first
court of civil justice (Judex Dromi). Subsequently he was appointed
Counsellor of the Emperor, John Cantacuzene, and finally a Sebastos and
Curopalatos under John Paleologus. In the year 1345 he published a
"Manual of Jurisprudence." This work is of great value to the student of
Roman law as he completes the work of the Emperor Basil by adding the
imperial constitutions since that time. But our chief concern with him is as
the author of an "Epitome of the Divine and Sacred Canons."

Constantine Harmenopulus was the last Greek jurist, and then
Constantinople fell, to the everlasting disgrace of a divided Christendom,

50

into the hands of the Infidel, and the law of the false Prophet supplanted
the Roman Law, the Code of Civilization and Christianity.

I pass now to the history of the growth of the canon law in the West. No
one reading even cursorily the canons contained in the present volume can
fail to notice that, with the exception of those of the African code, they are
primarily intended for the government of the East and of persons more
immediately under the shadow of the imperial city. In fact in the canons of
the Council in Trullo and in those of the Seventh Synod there are places of
which not even covertly are attacks, or at least reflections, upon the
Western customs of the time. And it does not seem to be an unjust view of
the matter to detect in the Council of Chalcedon and its canon on the
position of the See of Rome, a beginning of that unhappy spirit which
found its full expression in that most lamentable breaking off of
communion between East and West.

While, then, as I have pointed out, in the East the Canon Law was
developed and digested side by side and in consonance with the civil law,
in the West the state of things was wholly different, and while in secular
matters the secular power was supposed to be supreme, there grew up a
great body of Ecclesiastical Law, often at variance with the secular decrees
upon the subject. To trace this, step by step, is no part of my duty in this
excursus, and I shall only give so brief an outline that the reader may be
able to understand the references in the notes which accompany the
Canons in the text.

Somewhere about the year 500 Dionysius Exiguus, who was Abbot of a
Monastery in Rome, translated a collection of Greek Canons into Latin for
Bishop Stephen of Salona. At the head of these he placed fifty of what we
now know as the "Canons of the Apostles," but it must not be supposed
that he was convinced of their Apostolic origin, for in the Preface to his
translation he expressly styles them "Canons which are said to be by the
Apostles," and adds "quibus plurimi consensum non proebuere facilem."
To these he added the canons of Chalcedon with those that council had
accepted, viz., those of Sardica, and a large number passed by African
Synods, and lastly the Papal Decretals from Siricius to Anastasius II.

The next collection is that of St. Isidore of Seville, or which is supposed to
have been made by him, early in the seventh century.

51

About the middle of the ninth century there appeared a collection bearing
the name of Isidore Mercator, and containing the "false decretals" which
have been so fruitful a theme of controversial writing. This collection was
made somewhere about the year 850, and possibly at Mayence. Many
writers in treating of these decretals, which are undoubtedly spurious,
seem to forget that they must have expressed the prevailing opinions of
the day in which they were forged of, of what those early Popes would
have been likely to have said, and that therefore even forgeries as they
certainly are, they have a great historical value which no sound scholar can
properly neglect.

After the collection of St. Isidore we have no great collection till that of
Gratian in 1151. Gratian was a Benedictine monk, and he styled his work
"A Reconciling of contradictory canons" (Concordantia discordantium
Canonum), which well sets forth what his chief object in view was, but his
work had a great future before it, and all the world knows it as "Gratian' s
Decretum," and with it begins the "collections" of Canon law, if we
consider it as a system in present force.

"This great work is divided into three parts. The first part, in 101
'Distinctions,' treats of ecclesiastical law, its origin, principles, and
authority, and then of the differnt ranks and duties of the clergy. The
second part, in thirty-six 'Causes,' treats of ecclesiastical courts and their
forms of procedure. The third part, usually called 'De Consecratione,'
treats of things and rites employed in the service of religion. From its first
appearance the Decretum obtained a wide popularity, but it was soon
discovered that it contained numerous errors, which were corrected under
the directions of successive Popes down to Gregory XIII. Nor, although
every subsequent generation has resorted to its pages, is the Decretum an
authority to this day — that is, whatever canons or maxims of law are
found in it possess only that degree of legality which they would possess
if they existed separately; their being in the Decretum gives them no
binding force. In the century after Gratian, several supplementary
collections of Decretals who employed in the work the extraordinary
learning and acumen of St. Raymond of Pennafort, into five books, known
as the Decretals of Gregory IX. These are in the fullest sense
authoritative, having been deliberately ratified and published by that Pope
(1234). The Sext, or sixth book of the Decretals, was added by Boniface

52

VIII. (1298). The Clementines are named after Clement V., who compiled
them out of the canons of the Council of Vienne (1316) and some of his
own constitutions. The Extravagantes of the decretals of twenty-five
Popes, ending with Sixtus IV. (1484), complete the list. Of these five
collections — namely the Decretals, the Sext, the Clementines, the
Extravagants of John XXII. and the Extravagants Common — the 'Corpus
Juris Ecclesiastici' of the West is made up."

Into this body of canon law of course many of the canons we shall have to
treat of in the following pages have been incorporated and so far as
possible I shall give the reader a reference which will help his research in
this particular.

53

THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICE

A.D. 325

Emperor. — CONSTANTINE.
Pope. — Silvester.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

The Creed and the Creed of Eusebius of ' Caesar ea.

Excursus on the word yevvnGevToc ox> TtoinGevToc.

Excursus on the words yevvr|9er|0evToc ox> TtoinGevxoc

The XX. Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Cj, On the use of the word Canon.

Excursus to Cv, On the word rcpogcpepeiv.

Excursus to C vj, On the Extent of Rome 's Jurisdiction over Suburban

Churches.
Excursus to C vij, On the Rise of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Excursus

to C. viij, On the Chorepiscopi.
Excursus to C. xj, On the Public Discipline.
Excursus to C xiij, On the Communion of the Sick.
Excursus to C xv, On the Translation of Bishops.
Excursus to C xvij, On Usury.
Excursus to C xix, On Deaconesses.
Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons, with the Contents of the

spurious Arabic Canons.
Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy.
The Synodal Letter with the Decree on the Keeping of Easter.

54

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

The history of the Council of Nice has been so often written by so many
brilliant historians, from the time of its sitting down to to-day, that any
historical notice of the causes leading to its assembling, or account of its
proceedings, seems quite unnecessary. The editor, however, ventures to
call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of
the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was
not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from
a priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God,
but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They
understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes.
They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect — to
hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received
according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning,
but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What
do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have
I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others?
When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope
St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the
satisfaction of the assembled fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it
was the traditional faith of the Church. It was not the doctrine of Leo in
the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church
since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they
studied the Tome, they cried out:

"This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles!... Peter
hath thus spoken by Leo! The Apostles thus taught! Cyril thus taught!"
etc.

No Acts of either of the first two Ecumenical Councils have been landed
down.

55

THE NICENE CREED

{Found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils ofEphesus and Chalcedon,
in the Epistle ofEusebius of Coesarea to his own Church, in the Epistle of
St. Athanasius Ad Jovianum Imp., in the Ecclesiastical Histories of
Theodoret and Socrates, and elsewhere, The variations in the text are
absolutely without importance.)

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible
and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (yevvnGevToc), not made,
being of one substance (6u.ooijgiov, consubstantialem) with the Father.
By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who
for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was
incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again,
and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick
and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall
say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (r\\ 7toTe oxe cok
■nv), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of
things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from
the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion —
all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

56

NOTES

The Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he presented to the council, and
which some suppose to have suggested the creed finally adopted.

{Found in his Epistle to his diocese; vide: St. Athanasius and Theodoret.)

We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible
and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word of God, God
of God, Light of Light, life of life, his only Son, the first-born of all
creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything
was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered
amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will
come again one day in his glory to judge the quick and the dead. We believe
also in the Holy Ghost We believe that each of these three is and subsists;
the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as
Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach:
Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

57

EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS.

The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the
request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their
definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were
capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and
penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the
orthodox proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of
escaping from the force of. After a series of attempts of this sort it was
found that something clearer and more unequivocal must be adopted if real
unity of faith was to be attained; and accordingly the word homousios was
adopted. Just what the Council intended this expression to mean is set
forth by St. Athanasius as follows: "That the Son is not only like to the
Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the
Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his
immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something
acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover,
they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of
human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable
from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the
same, as the Son himself said: 'The Logos is always in the Father, and, the
Father always in the Logos,' as the sun and its splendor are inseparable."

The word homousios had not had, although frequently used before the
Council of Nice, a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the
Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian
meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered
it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches.

On the other hand the word is used four times by St. Irenaeus, and
Pamphilus the Martyr is quoted as asserting that Origen used the very
word in the Nicene sense. Tertullian also uses the expression "of one
substance" (unius substanticoe) in two places, and it would seem that
more than half a century before the meeting of the Council of Nice, it was
a common one among the Orthodox.

58

Vasquez treats this matter at some length in his Disputations, and points
out how well the distinction is drawn by Epiphanius between Synousios
and Homousios, "for synousios signifies such an unity of substance as
allows of no distinction: wherefore the Sabellians would admit this word:
but on the contrary homousios signifies the same nature and substance but
with a distinction between persons one from the other. Rightly, therefore,
has the Church adopted this word as the one best calculated to confute the
Arian heresy."

It may perhaps be well to note that these words are formed like 6po(3io<;
and 6jj,oi6pio<;, opoyvcouxov and ouxnoyvcouxov etc., etc.

The reader will find this whole doctrine treated at great length in all the
bodies of divinity; and in Alexander Natalis (H.E. t. iv., Dies, xiv.); he is
also referred to Pearson, On the Creed; Bull, Defense of the Nicene Creed;
Forbes, An Explanation of the Nicene Creed; and especially to the little
book, written in answer to the recent criticisms of Professor Harnack, by
H. B. Swete, D.D., The Apostles' Creed.

59
EXCURSUS ON THE WORDS yevvneevToc ov Ttoineevxa,

(J. B. Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers — Part II. Vol. 2:Sec. I. pp. 90, et
seqq.)

The Son is here [Ignat. Ad. Eph. vii.] declared to be yevvTycoc; as man and
dyevvrycof; as God, for this is clearly shown to be the meaning from the
parallel clauses. Such language is not in accordance with later theological
definitions, which carefully distinguished between yevnrof; and yevvnroc;
between dyevr|TO<; and dyevvr|TO<;; so that yevnrof; dyevcoc; respectively
denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to ktigto<;
ocktioto<;, while yevvr|T6<;, dyevvrycoc, described certain ontological
relations, whether in time or in eternity. In the later theological language,
therefore, the Son was yevvrrrac; even in his Godhead. See esp. Joann.
Damasc. de Fid. Orth. 1:8 [where he draws the conclusion that only the
Father is dyevvrrixx; and only the Son yevvnrof;]

There can be little doubt however, that Ignatius wrote yevvr|T6<; koci
dyevvr|TO<; though his editors frequently alter it into yevnrcx; koci
dyevvrycot; For the Greek MS. still retains the double [Greek nun] v,
though the claims of orthodoxy would be a temptation to scribes to
substitute the single v. And to this reading also the Latin genitus et
ingenitus points. On the other hand it cannot be concluded that translators
who give f actus et non /actus had the words with one v, for this was after
all what Ignatius meant by the double v, and they would naturally render
his words so as to make his orthodoxy apparent. When Theodoret writes
yevvTyccx; e^ dyevvr|TO'u it is clear that he, or the person before him who
first substituted this reading, must have read yevvTycbc; koci dyevvrycot; for
there would be no temptation to alter the perfectly orthodox yevrycbc; koc\
dyevr|TO<; nor (if altered) would it have taken this form. When the
interpolator substitutes 6 \io\oq d^n9iv6<; Qebq b dyevvr|TO<; xo-u 8e
U-ovoyovo-uc; naxr\p koci yevvrixcop, the natural inference is that he too,
had the forms in double v, which he retained, at the same time altering the
whole run of the sentence so as not to do violence to his own doctrinal
views; see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. 2:2 § 6. The quotation in Athanasius is more
difficult. The MSS. vary, and his editors write yevryccx; kou dyevr|TO<;.
Zahn too, who has paid more attention to this point than any previous

60

editor of Ignatius, in his former work (Ign. V. Ant. p. 564), supposed
Athanasius to have read and written the words with a single v, though in
his subsequent edition of Ignatius (p. 338) he declares himself unable to
determine between the single and double 5:1 believe, however, that the
argument of Athanasius decides in favor of the vv. Elsewhere he insists
repeatedly on the distinction between KTi^eiv and ye vvdv justifying the
use of the latter term as applied to the divinity of the Son, and defending
the statement in the Nicene Creed yevvr|T;bv ek tt|<; ovoiaq zov 7taxp6<;
tov i/ibv opoouaiov (De Synod. 54, 1, p. 612). Although he is not
responsible for the language of the Macrostich (De Synod. 3, 1, p. 590),
and would have regarded it as inadequate without the 6u.ooijgiov yet this
use of terms entirely harmonizes with his own. In the passage before us,
ib. §§ 46, 47 (p. 607), he is defending the use of homousios at Nicaea,
notwithstanding that it had been previously rejected by the council which
condemned Paul of Samosata, and he contends that both councils were
orthodox, since they used homousios in a different sense. As a parallel
instance he takes the word dyevvrycoc; which like homousios is not a
scriptural word, and like it also is used in two ways, signifying either (1.)
To ov (j,ev \ir\xe 8e yevvnGev \xr\xe oXcoq e%ov xov ocitiov or (2.) To
ocKTiaxov. In the former sense the Son cannot be called dyevv rycogn the
latter he may be so called. Both uses, he says, are found in the fathers. Of
the latter he quotes the passage in Ignatius as an example; of the former he
says, that some writers subsequent to Ignatius declare ev to dyevvrycov 6
7tcn;rip, Kocie'it; 6 e^ oruToi) vibq yvr|Oio<;, yevvr|jj,oc a^nQivov k.tX
[He may have been thinking of Clem. Alex. Strom. 6:7, which I shall quote
below.] He maintains that both are orthodox, as having in view two
different senses of the word dyevvr|Tov and the same, he argues, is the
case with the councils which seem to take opposite sides with regard to
homousios. It is dear from this passage, as Zahn truly says, that
Athanasius is dealing with one and the same word throughout; and, if so, it
follows that this word must be dyevvrycov, since dyevxr|Tov would be
intolerable in some places. I may add by way of caution that in two other
passages, de Decret. Syn. Nic. 28 (1, p. 184), Orat. c. Arian. 1:30 (1, p.
343), St. Athanasius gives the various senses of dyevvnrov (for this is
plain from the context), and that these passages ought not to be treated as
parallels to the present passage which is concerned with the senses of
dyevvnrov. Much confusion is thus created, e.g. in Newman's notes on

61

the several passages in the Oxford translation of Athanasius (pp. 51 sq.,
224 sq.), where the three passages are treated as parallel, and no attempt is
made to discriminate the readings in the several places, but "ingenerate" is
given as the rendering of both alike. If then Athanasius who read yevvTycbc,
koc\ dyevvTyixx; in Ignatius, there is absolutely no authority for the
spelling with one v. The earlier editors (Voss, Useher, Cotelier, etc.),
printed it as they found it in the MS.; but Smith substituted the forms
with the single v, and he has been followed more recently by Hefele,
Dressel, and some other. In the Casatensian copy of the MS., a marginal
note is added, dvocyvcooTeov dyevr|TO<; tout eaxi \ir\ noir\Qe\q
Waterland (Works, III., p. 240 sq., Oxf. 1823) tries ineffectually to show
that the form with the double v was invented by the fathers at a later date
to express their theological conception. He even "doubts whether there
was any such word as dyevvr|To<; so early as the time of Ignatius." In this
he is certainly wrong.

The MSS. of early Christian writers exhibit much confusion between these
words spelled with the double and the single v. See e.g. Justin Dial. 2, with
Otto's note; Athenag. Suppl. 4 with Otto's note; Theophil, adAutol. 2:3,
4; Iren. 4:38, 1, 3; Orig. c. Cels. 6:66; Method, de Lib. Arbitr., p. 57; Jahn
(see Jahn's note 11, p. 122); Maximus in Euseb. Praep. Ev. 7:22; Hippol.
Haer. 5:16 (from Sibylline Oracles); Clem. Alex. Strom 5:14; and very
frequently in later writers. Yet notwithstanding the confusion into which
later transcribers have thus thrown the subject, it is still possible to
ascertain the main facts respecting the usage of the two forms. The
distinction between the two terms, as indicated by their origin, is that
dyevnroc; denies the creation, and dyevvr|TO<; the generation or parentage.
Both are used at a very early date; e.g. dyevnroc; by Parmenides in Clem.
Alex. Strom. 5:14, and by Agothon in Arist. Eth. Nic. 7:2 (comp. also Orac.
Sibyll. prooem. 7, 17); and dyevvnrot; in Soph. Track. 61 (where it is
equivalent to Suoyevcov Here the distinction of meaning is strictly
preserved, and so probably it always is in Classical writers; for in Soph.
Track. 743 we should after Porson and Hermann read dyevnrov with
Suidas. In Christian writers also there is no reason to suppose that the
distinction was ever lost, though in certain connections the words might be
used convertibly. Whenever, as here in Ignatius, we have the double v
where we should expect the single, we must ascribe the fact to the

62

indistinctness or incorrectness of the writer's theological conceptions, not
to any obliteration of the meaning of the terms themselves. To this early
father for instance the eternal yevvr|ai<; of the Son was not a distinct
theological idea, though substantially he held the same views as the Nicene
fathers respecting the Person of Christ. The following passages from early
Christian writers will serve at once to show how far the distinction was
appreciated, and to what extent the Nicene conception prevailed in
ante-Nicene Christianity; Justin Apol. 2:6, comp. ib. § 13; Athenag. Suppl.
10 (comp. ib. 4); Theoph. ad. Aut. 2:3; Tatian Orat. 5; Rhodon in Euseb.
H. E. 5:13; Clem. Alex. Strom. 6:7; Orig. c. Cels. 6:17, ib. 6:52; Concil.
Antioch (A.D. 269) in Routh Rel. Sacr. III., p. 290; Method, de Great. 5.
In no early Christian writing, however, is the distinction more obvious
than in the Clementine Homilies, 10:10 (where the distinction is employed
to support the writer's heretical theology): see also 8:16, and comp. 19:3,
4, 9, 12. The following are instructive passages as regards the use of these
words where the opinions of other heretical writers are given; Saturninus,
Iren. 1:24, 1; Hippol. Haer. 7:28; Simon Magus, Hippol. Haer. 6:17, 18;
the Valentinians, Hippol. Haer. 6:29, 30; the Ptolemaeus in particular,
Ptol. Ep. ad. Flor. 4 (in Stieren's Ireninians, Hipaeus, p. 935); Basilides,
Hippol. Haer. 7:22; Carpocrates, Hippol. Haer. 7:32.

From the above passages it will appear that Ante-Nicene writers were not
indifferent to the distinction of meaning between the two words; and when
once the orthodox Christology was formulated in the Nicene Creed in the
words yevvnGevToc ox> TtoinGevToc, it became henceforth impossible to
overlook the difference. The Son was thus declared to be yevvTycot; but not
yevrrrxx; I am therefore unable to agree with Zahn (Marcellus, pp. 40, 104,
223, Ign. von Ant. p. 565), that at the time of the Arian controversy the
disputants were not alive to the difference of meaning. See for example
Epiphanius, Haer. 64:8. But it had no especial interest for them. While the
orthodox party clung to the homousios as enshrining the doctrine for
which they fought, they had no liking for the terms ocyevvrrrac; and
yevvnTog as applied to the Father and the Son respectively, though unable
to deny their propriety, because they were affected by the Arians and
applied in their own way. To the orthodox mind the Arian formula o\)K nv
Ttpiv yevvr|9r|Voci or some Semiarian formula hardly less dangerous,
seemed always to be lurking under the expression 0eo<; yevvnroc; as

63

applied to the Son. Hence the language of Epiphanius Haer. 73: 19: "As
you refuse to accept our homousios because though used by the fathers, it
does not occur in the Scriptures, so will we decline on the same grounds to
accept your ayevvrycoc,." Similarly Basil c. Eunom. L, iv., and especially
ib. further on, in which last passage he argues at great length against the
position of the heretics, ei 6cyevvTO<;, (pocaiv 6 7taxr|p yevvTyccx; 8e 6
t)io<;, ox) xf|<; cnkf|<; ovaiac,. See also the arguments against the
Anomoeans in [Athan.] Dial, de Trin. illpassim. This fully explains the
reluctance of the orthodox party to handle terms which their adversaries
used to endanger the homousios. But, when the stress of the Arian
controversy was removed, it became convenient to express the Catholic
doctrine by saying that the Son in his divine nature was yevvr|TO<; but not
yevr|TO<;. And this distinction is staunchly maintained in later orthodox
writers, e.g. John of Damascus, already quoted in the beginning of this
Excursus.

64

THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS
ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA

CANON I.

If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical
operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among
the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it
behooves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should
cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should
be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully
do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made
eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found
worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

Eunuchs may be received into the number of the clergy, but those who
castrate themselves shall not be received.

BALSAMON

The divine Apostolic Canons xxi., xxii., xxiii., and xxiv., have taught us
sufficiently what ought to be done with those who castrate themselves,
this canon provides as to what is to be done to these as well as to those
who deliver themselves over to others to be emasculated by them, viz.,
that they are not to be admitted among the clergy nor advanced to the
priesthood.

65
DANIEL BUTLER

(Smith & Cheetham, Diet. Christ. Ant)

The feeling that one devoted to the sacred ministry should be unmutilated
was strong in the Ancient Church.... This canon of Nice, and those in the
Apostolic Canons and a later one in the Second Council of Aries (canon
vii.) were aimed against that perverted notion of piety, originating in the
misinterpretation of our Lord's saying (Matthew 19:12) by which Origen,
among others, was misled, and their observance was so carefully enforced
in later times that not more than one or two instances of the practice
which they condemn are noticed by the historian. The case was different if
a man was born an eunuch or had suffered mutilation at the hands of
persecutors; an instance of the former, Dorotheus, presbyter of Antioch,
is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. vii., c. 32); of the latter, Tigris, presbyter
of Constantinople, is referred to both by Socrates (H. E. 6:16) and
Sozomen (H. E. 6:24) as the victim of a barbarian master.

HEFELE

We know, by the first apology of St. Justin (Apol. c. 29) that a century
before Origen, a young man had desired to be mutilated by physicians, for
the purpose of completely refuting the charge of vice which the heathen
brought against the worship of Christians. St. Justin neither praises nor
blames this young man: he only relates that he could not obtain the
permission of the civil authorities for his project, that he renounced his
intention, but nevertheless remained virgo all his life. It is very probable
that the Council of Nice was induced by some fresh similar cases to renew
the old injunctions; it was perhaps the Arian bishop, Leontius, who was
the principal cause of it.

66

LAMBERT

Constantine forbade by a law the practice condemned in this canon. "If
anyone shall anywhere in the Roman Empire after this decree make
eunuchs, he shall be punished with death. If the owner of the place where
the deed was perpetrated was aware of it and hid the fact, his goods shall
be confiscated." (Const. M. Opera. Migne Patrol, vol. viii., 396.)

BEVERLDGE

The Nicene fathers in this canon make no new enactment but only confirm
by the authority of an Ecumenical synod the Apostolic Canons, and this is
evident from the wording of this canon. For there can be no doubt that
they had in mind some earlier canon when they said, "such men the canon
admits to the clergy." Not, oi)xo<; 6 kocvgjv but 6 kocvoiv as if they had
said "the formerly set forth and well-known canon" admits such to the
clergy. But no other canon then existed in which this provision occurred
except apostolical canon 21:which therefore we are of opinion is here
cited. [In this conclusion Hefele also agrees.]

This law was frequently enacted by subsequent synods and is inserted in
the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum Gratiani. Pars. I. Distinctio LV., C
vij-

67
EXCURSUS ON THE USE OF THE WORD "CANON."

(Bright: Notes on the Canons, pp. 2 and 3.)

Kocvcov as an ecclesiastical term, has a very interesting history. See
Westcott's account of it, On the New Testament Canon, p. 498 if. The
original sense, "a straight rod" or "line," determines all its religious
applications, which begin with St. Paul's use of it for a prescribed sphere
of apostolic work (2 Corinthians 10:13, 15), or a regulative principle of
Christian life (Galatians 6:16). It represents the element of definiteness in
Christianity and in the order of the Christian Church. Clement of Rome
uses it for the measure of Christian attainment (Ep. Cor. 7). Irenaeus calls
the baptismal creed "the canon of truth" (i. 9, 4): Polycrates (Euseb. 5:24)
and probably Hippolytus (ib. 5:28) calls it "the canon of faith;" the
Council of Antioch in A.D. 269, referring to the same standard of orthodox
belief, speaks with significant absoluteness of "the canon" (ib. 7:30).
Eusebius himself mentions "the canon of truth" in 4:23, and "the canon of
the preaching" in 3:32; and so Basil speaks of "the transmitted canon of
true religion" (Epist. 204-6). Such language, like Tertullian's "regulafidei,"
amounted to saying, "We Christians know what we believe: it is not a
vague 'idea' without substance or outline: it can be put into form, and by
it we 'test the spirits whether they be of God.'" Thus it was natural for
Socrates to call the Nicene Creed itself a "canon," 2:27. Clement of
Alexandria uses the phrase "canon of truth" for a standard of mystic
interpretation, but proceeds to call the harmony between the two
Testaments "a canon for the Church," Strom. 6:15, 124, 125. Eusebius
speaks of "the ecclesiastical canon" which recognized no other Gospels
than the four (vi. 25). The use of the term and its cognates in reference to
the Scriptures is explained by Westcott in a passive sense so that
"canonized" books, as Athanasius calls them (Fest. Ep. 39), are books
expressly recognized by the Church as portions of Holy Scripture. Again,
as to matters of observance, Clement of Alexandria wrote a book against
Judaizers, called "The Churches Canon" (Euseb. 6:13); and Cornelius of
Rome, in his letter to Fabius, speaks of the "canon" as to what we call
confirmation (Euseb. 6:43), and Dionysius of the "canon" as to reception
of converts from heresy (ib, 7:7). The Nicene Council in this canon refers
to a standing "canon" of discipline (comp. Nic. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18),

68

but it does not apply the term to its own enactments, which are so
described in the second canon of Constantinople (see below), and of which
Socrates says "that it passed what are usually called 'canons'" (i. 13); as
Julius of Rome calls a decree of this Council a "canon" (Athan. Apol. c.
Ari. 25); so Athanasius applies the term generally to Church laws (Encycl.
2; cp. Apol. c. Ari. 69). The use of kocvcov for the clerical body (Nic. 16,
17, 19; Chalc. 2) is explained by Westcott with reference to the rule of
clerical life, but Bingham traces it to the roll or official list on which the
names of clerics were enrolled (i. 5, 10); and this appears to be the more
natural derivation, see "the holy canon" in the first canon of the Council of
Antioch, and compare Socrates (i. 17), "the Virgins enumerated ev x& xcov
eKKXr|Gi(5v kocvovi ," and (ib. 5:19) on the addition of a penitentiary "to
the canon of the church;" see also George of Laodicea in Sozomon, 4:13.
Hence any cleric might be called kocvovikoc; see Cyril of Jerusalem,
Procatech.; so we read of "canonical singers." Laodicea, canon xv. The
same notion of definiteness appears in the ritual use of the word for a
series of nine "odes" in the Eastern Church service (Neale, Introd. East.
Ch. if. 832), for the central and unvarying element in the Liturgy, beginning
after the Tersanctus (Hammond, Liturgies East and West, p. 377); or for
any Church office (Ducange in v.); also in its application to a table for the
calculation of Easter (Euseb. 6:29; 7:32); to a scheme for exhibiting the
common and peculiar parts of the several Gospels (as the "Eusebian
canons") and to a prescribed or ordinary payment to a church, a use which
grew out of one found in Athanasius' Apol. C. Ari. 60.

In more recent times a tendency has appeared to restrict the term Canon to
matters of discipline, but the Council of Treat continued the ancient use of
the word, calling its doctrinal and disciplinary determinations alike
"Canons."

69

CANON II

Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of
individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical
canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who
have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the
spiritual layer, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to
the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the
time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself
there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical
saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into
condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any
sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be
convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office.
And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own
clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.

Those who have come from the heathen shall not be immediately advanced
to the presbyterate. For without a probation of some time a neophyte is of
no advantage (kocko<;). But if after ordination it be found out that he had
sinned previously, let him then be expelled from the clergy.

HEFELE

It may be seen by the very text of this canon, that it was already forbidden
to baptize, and to raise to the episcopate or to the priesthood anyone who
had only been a catechumen for a short time: this injunction is in fact
contained in the eightieth (seventy-ninth) apostolical canon; and according

70

to that, it would be older than the Council of Nicaea. There have been,
nevertheless, certain cases in which, for urgent reasons, an exception has
been made to the rule of the Council of Nicaea — for instance, that of S.
Ambrose. The canon of Nicaea does not seem to allow such an exception,
but it might be justified by the apostolical canon, which says, at the close:
"It is not right that any one who has not yet been proved should be a
teacher of others, unless by a peculiar divine grace." The expression of the
canon of Nicaea, \|/i>%ik6v ti ajiocpxruxoc is not easy to explain: some
render it by the Latin words animate peccatam, believing that the Council
has here especially in view sins of the flesh; but as Zonaras has said, all
sins are \]A)%ikoc au.ocpTf|U.ocToc We must then understand the passage in
question to refer to a capital and very serious offense, as the penalty of
deposition annexed to it points out.

These words have also given offense, ei Se 7tpo'iovTo<; tov %povov; that
is to say, "It is necessary henceforward," etc., understanding that it is only
those who have been too quickly ordained who are threatened with
deposition in case they are guilty of crime; but the canon is framed, and
ought to be understood, in a general manner: it applies to all other
clergymen, but it appears also to point out that greater severity should be
shown toward those who have been too quickly ordained.

Others have explained the passage in this manner: "If it shall become
known that any one who has been too quickly ordained was guilty before
his baptism of any serious offense, he ought to be deposed." This is the
interpretation given by Gratian, but it must be confessed that such a
translation does violence to the text. This is, I believe, the general sense of
the canon, and of this passage in particular: "Henceforward no one shall be
baptized or ordained quickly. As to those already in orders (without any
distinction between those who have been ordained in due course and those
who have been ordained too quickly), the rule is that they shall be de
posed if they commit a serious offense. Those who are guilty of
disobedience to this great Synod, either by allowing themselves to be
ordained or even by ordaining others prematurely, are threatened with
deposition ipso facto, and for this fault alone." We consider, in short, that
the last words of the canon may be understood as well of the ordained as
of the ordainer.

71

CANON III

The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon,
or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with
him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are
beyond all suspicion.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.

No one shall have a woman in his house except his mother, and sister, and
persons altogether beyond suspicion.

JUSTELLUS

Who these mulieres subintroductae were does not sufficiently appear...
but they were neither wives nor concubines, but women of some third
kind, which the clergy kept with them, not for the sake of offspring or
lust, but from the desire, or certainly under the pretense, of piety.

JOHNSON

For want of a proper English word to render it by, I translate "to retain
any woman in their houses under pretense of her being a disciple to them."

72

VAN ESPEN

translates: And his sisters and aunts cannot remain unless they be free
from all suspicion.

Fuchs in his Bibliothek der kirchenver sammlungen confesses that this
canon shews that the practice of clerical celibacy had already spread
widely. In connection with this whole subject of the subintroductae the
text of St. Paul should be carefully considered. 1 Corinthians 9:5.

HErELE

It is very terrain that the canon of Nice forbids such spiritual unions, but
the context shows moreover that the Fathers had not these particular cases
in view alone; and the expression ov\e\oaKxoq should be understood of
every woman who is introduced (avveiaaKTOt;) into the house of a
clergyman for the purpose of living there. If by the word cruveiaocKTOf;
was only intended the wife in this spiritual marriage, the Council would
not have said, any (XuveiaocKTOt; except his mother, etc.; for neither his
mother nor his sister could have formed this spiritual union with the cleric.
The injunction, then, does net merely forbid the ctuv£igockt;o<; in the
specific sense, but orders that "no woman must live in the house of a
cleric, unless she be his mother," etc.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Distinc. XXXIL, C. xvj.

73

CANON IV

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the
bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of
urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together,
and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and
communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in
every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the
Metropolitan.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least by
three, the rest giving by letter their assent; but this choice must be
confirmed by the Metropolitan.

ZONARAS

The present Canon might seem to be opposed to the first canon of the
Holy Apostles, for the latter enjoins that a bishop ordained by two or
three bishops, but this by three, the absent also agreeing and testifying
their assent by writing. But they are not contradictory; for the Apostolical
canon by ordination (%eipoToviav) means consecration and imposition of
hands, but the present canon by constitution (koctocgtocgiv) and
ordination means the election, and enjoins that the election of a bishop do
not take place unless three assemble, having the consent also of the absent
by letter, or a declaration that they also will acquiesce in the election (or
vote, \|/r](pcp) made by the three who have assembled. But after the election

74

it gives the ratification or completion of the matter — the imposition of
hands and consecration — to the metropolitan of the province, so that the
election is to be ratified by him. He does so when with two or three
bishops, according to the apostolical canon, he consecrates with
imposition of hands the one of the elected persons whom he himself
selects.

BALSAMON

also understands kocGigtocoGoci to mean election by vote.

BRIGHT

The Greek canonists are certainly in error when they interpret
%eipoTovioc of election. The canon is akin to the 1st Apostolic canon
which, as the canonists admit, must refer to the consecration of a new
bishop, and it was cited in that sense at the Council of Cholcedon —
Session xiii. (Mansi., 7:307). We must follow Rufinus and the old Latin
translators, who speak of "ordinari" "ordinatio" and "manus
impositionem."

HEFELE

The Council of Nice thought it necessary to define by precise rules the
duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections. It
decided (a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for the
appointment of another; (b) three at least should meet, and (c) they were
not to proceed to election without the written permission of the absent
bishops; it was necessary (d) to obtain afterward the approval of the
metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the ordinary metropolitan
division in its two most important points, namely, the nomination and
ordination of bishops, and the superior position of the metropolitan. The

75

third point connected with this division — namely, the provincial synod
— will be considered under the next canon.

Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may be remembered
that he had nominated bishops without the concurrence of the other
bishops of the province, and without the approval of the metropolitan of
Alexandria, and had thus occasioned a schism. This canon was intended to
prevent the recurrence of such abuses. The question has been raised as to
whether the fourth canon speaks only of the choice of the bishop, or
whether it also treats of the consecration of the newly elected. We think,
with Van Espen, that it treats equally of both, — as well of the part which
the bishops of the province should take in an episcopal election, as of the
consecration which completes it.

This canon has been interpreted in two ways. The Greeks had learnt by
bitter experience to distrust the interference of princes and earthly
potentates in episcopal elections. Accordingly, they tried to prove that
this canon of Nice took away from the people the right of voting at the
nomination of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to the
bishops of the province.

The Greek Commentators, Balsamon and others, therefore, only followed
the example of the Seventh and [so-called] Eighth (Ecumenical Councils in
affirming that this fourth canon of Nice takes away from the people the
right previously possessed of voting in the choice of bishops and makes
the election depend entirely on the decision of the bishops of the province.

The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with it also the people
have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen till
later, about the eleventh century; and it was not the people only who were
removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the election was
conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church. The Latins then
interpreted the canon of Nice as though it said nothing of the rights of the
bishops of the province in the election of their future colleague (and it does
not speak of it in a very explicit manner), and as though it determined
these two points only; (a) that for the ordination of a bishop three
bishops at least are necessary; (b) that the right of confirmation rests with
the metropolitan.

76

The whole subject of episcopal elections is treated fully by Van Espen and
by Thomassin, in Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de V Eglise, P. II. 1. 2.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I. Dist. LXIV. c.j.

77

CANON V.

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been
excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be
observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be
not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether
they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness,
or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this
matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province
synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the
province are assembled together, such questions may by them be
thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against
their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until
it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder
sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent,
(that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put
away), and let the second be held about autumn.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops shall not be
restored by others, unless the excommunication was the result of
pusillanimity, or strife, or some other similar cause. And that this may be
duly attended to, there shall be in each year two synods in every province
— the one before Lent, the other toward autumn.

There has always been found the greatest difficulty in securing the regular
meetings of provincial and diocesan synods, and despite the very explicit
canonical legislation upon the subject, and the severe penalties attached to
those not answering the summons, in large parts of the Church for

78

centuries these councils have been of the rarest occurrence. Zonaras
complains that in his time "these synods were everywhere treated with
great contempt," and that they had actually ceased to be held.

Possibly the opinion of St. Gregory Nazianzen had grown common, for it
will be remembered that in refusing to go to the latter sessions of the
Second Ecumenical he wrote, "I am resolved to avoid every meeting of
bishops, for I have never seen any synod end well, nor assuage rather than
aggravate disorders."

HEFELE

Gelasius has given in his history of the Council of Nice, the text of the
canons passed by the Council; and it must be noticed that there is here a
slight difference between his text and ours. Our reading is as follows: "The
excommunication continues to be in force until it seem good to the
assembly of bishops (xcp koiv©) to soften it." Gelasius, on the other
hand, writes: jie%pi<; ocv x(3 koivco f| z& knioKonco, k.tI. that is to say,
"until it seem good to the assembly of bishops, or to the bishop (who has
passed the sentence)," etc. ...Dionysius the Less has also followed this
vacation, as his translation of the canon shows. It does not change the
essential meaning of the passage; for it may be well understood that the
bishop who has passed the sentence of excommunication has also the right
to mitigate it. But the variation adopted by the Prisca alters, on the
contrary, the whole sense of the canon: the Prisca has not xcp koiv© but
only eTtiGKOTCCp it is in this erroneous form that the canon has passed into
the Corpus jurisc an.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XI, Quaest. III., Canon lxxiij., and the latter part in Pars I.,
Distinc. XVIII. , c. iij.

79
EXCURSUS ON THE WORD Ilpoocpepeiv

(Dr. Adolph Harnack: Hist, of Dogma [Eng. Tr.] Vol. I. p. 209.)

The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly
found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin (I. 65f.)
But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40-44) he draws a
parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the
Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44.4)
7tpoG(pepeiv toc Scopoc This is not the place to enquire whether the first
celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial
meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of
Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards
seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi 1:11, demanded
a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second
place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the solemn
prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third
place, the words of institution tcuto Ttoielxe contained a command with
regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be
represented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile Christians
might suppose that they had to understand rcoieiv in the sense of 9i>eiv
In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae"
connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine
for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the
worship be regarded than as 7tpoa(popou for the purpose of a sacrifice?
Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as
the Guoiocproper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are
only 8(Spoc Ttpoacpopou, which obtain their value from the prayers, in
which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as
for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the
community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even
f| Tpocpri ocutti kocXeitoci rcocp f|(xiv £\>%ocpiai;ioc. Didache, 9. 1: Ignat.),
because it isxpoccpri e{>%ocpiGi;r|9eiaoc. It is a mistake to suppose that
Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of rcoieiv
and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial
act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the

80

e\)%ocpicmav Ttoielv whereby theicoivcx; apxcx; becomes theapxo<; xf|<;
e^xapiaxiat;. The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the
offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united
with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the
Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (See Apol. I. 14,
65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118).

Harnack (lib. cit. Vol. II. chapter III. p. 136) says that "Cyprian was the
first to associate the specific offering, i.e. the Lord's Supper with the
specific priesthood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the passio
Domini, nay, the sanguis Christi and the dominica hostia as the object of
the eucharistic offering." In a foot-note (on the same page) he explains that
"Sacrificare, Sacrificium celebrare in all passages where they are
unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate the Lord's
Supper." But Harnack is confronted by the very evident objection that if
this was an invention of St. Cyprian's, it is most extraordinary that it
raised no protest, and he very frankly confesses (note 2, on same page)
that "the transference of the sacrificial idea to the consecrated elements
which in all probability Cyprian already found in existence, etc." Harnack
further on (in the same note on p. 137) notes that he has pointed out in his
notes on the Didache that in the "Apostolic Church Order" occurs the
expression r\ rcpoacpopoc tov oc6u.octo<; gcouxxtoc, koci xov ouu.octo<;.

81

CANON VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the
Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other
provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be
universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the
consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man
ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from
natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it
being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the
choice of the majority prevail.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too,
the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be
a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no
bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the
majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most
important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole
library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting and
some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any one
wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find it in
Phillips's Kirchenrecht (Bd. 2:S. 35). I shall reserve what I have to say
upon this subject to the notes on a canon which seems really to deal with

82

it, confining myself here to an elucidation of the words found in the canon
before us.

HAMMOND, W. A.

The object and intention of this canon seems clearly to have been, not to
introduce any new powers or regulations into the Church, but to confirm
and establish ancient customs already existing. This, indeed, is evident
from the very first words of it: "Let the ancient customs be maintained." It
appears to have been made with particular reference to the case of the
Church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the irregular
proceedings of Miletius, and to confirm the ancient privileges of that see
which he had invaded. The latter part of it, however, applies to all
Metropolitans, and confirms all their ancient privileges.

FFOULKES.

(Diet. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicaea).

The first half of the canon enacts merely that what had long been
customary with respect to such persons in every province should become
law, beginning with the province where this principle had been infringed;
while the second half declares what was in future to be received as law on
two points which custom had not as yet expressly ruled.... Nobody
disputes the meaning of this last half; nor, in fact, would the meaning of
the first half have been questioned, had it not included Rome.... Nobody
can maintain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were called
patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive
with what they had afterward, when they were so called.... It is on this
clause ["since the like is customary for the Bishops of Rome also"]
standing parenthetically between what is decreed for the particular cases
of Egypt and Antioch, and in consequence of the interpretation given to it
by Rufinus, more particularly, that so much strife has been raised. Rufinus

83

may rank low as a translator, yet, being a native of Aquileia, he cannot
have been ignorant of Roman ways, nor, on the other hand, had he greatly
misrepresented them, would his version have waited till the seventeenth
century to be impeached.

HEFELE

The sense of the first words of the canon is as follows: "This ancient right
is assigned to the Bishop of Alexandria which places under his jurisdiction
the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then, that the
French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican Beveridge, and the
Gallican Launoy, try to show that the Council of Nice granted to the
Bishop of Alexandria only the rights of ordinary metropolitans.

BISHOP STILLINGFLEET.

I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of
Alexandria, for all the provinces of Egypt were under his immediate care,
which was Patriarchal as to extent, but Metropolical in the administration.

JUSTELLUS.

This authority (£^oi>oioc)is that of a Metropolitan which the Nicene
Fathers decreed to be his due over the three provinces named in this canon,
Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, which made up the whole diocese of Egypt,
as well in matters civil as ecclesiastical.

On this important question Hefele refers to the dissertation of Dupin, in
his work De Antiqua Ecclesoe Disciplina. Hefele says: "It seems to me
beyond a doubt that in this canon there is a question about that which was
afterward calm the patriarchate of the Bishop of Alexandria; that is to say

84

that he had a certain recognized ecclesiastical authority, not only over
several civil provinces, but also over several ecclesiastical provinces
(which had their own metropolitans);" and further on (p. 392) he adds: "It
is incontestable that the civil provinces of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis and
Thebais, which were all in subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria, were
also ecclesiastical provinces with their own metropolitans; and
consequently it is not the ordinary fights of metropolitans that the Sixth
Canon of Nice confers on the Bishop of Alexandria, but the rights of a
superior Metropolitan, that is, of a Patriarch."

There only remains to see what were the bounds of the jurisdiction of the
Bishop of Antioch. The civil diocese of Oriens is shown by the Second
Canon of Constantinople to be conterminous with what was afterward
called the Patriarchate of Antioch. The see of Antioch had, as we know,
several metropolitans subject to it, among them Caesarea, under whose
jurisdiction was Palestine. Justellus, however, is of opinion that Pope
Innocent I. was in error when he asserted that all the Metropolitans of
Oriens were to be ordained by him by any peculiar authority, and goes so
far as to stigmatize his words as "contrary to the mind of the Nicene
Synod."

85

EXCURSUS ON THE EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BISHOP OF ROME OVER THE SUBURBICAN CHURCHES.

Although, as Hefele well says, "It is evident that the Council has not in
view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but
simply his power as a patriarch," yet it may not be unimportant to
consider what his patriarchal limits may have been.

(Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. I., p. 397.)

The translation of this [VI.] canon by Rufinus has been especially an
apple of discord. Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta
consuetudo servetur, ut vel Me Egypti vel hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum
sollicitudinem gerat. In the seventeenth century this sentence of Rufinus
gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated jurist, Jacob
Gothfried (Gothofredus), and his friend, Salmasius, on one side, and the
Jesuit, Sirmond, on the other. The great prefecture of Italy, which
contained about a third of the whole Roman Empire, was divided into four
vicariates, among which the vicariate of Rome was the first. At its head
were two officers, the pro efectus urbi and the vicarius urbis. The
proefectus urbi exercised authority over the city of Rome, and further in a
suburban circle as far as the hundredth milestone, The boundary of the
vicarins urbis comprised ten provinces — Campania, Tuscia with Ombria,
Picenum, Valeria, Samnium, Apulia with Calabria, Lucania and that of the
Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius maintained,
that by the regiones suburbicarioe the little territory of the proefectus
urbi must be understood; while, according to Sirmond, these words
designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis . In our time Dr. Maasen
has proved in his book, already quoted several times, that Gothfried and
Salmasius were right in maintaining that, by the regiones suburbicarioe,
the little territory of the proefectus urbi must be alone understood.

Hefele thinks that Phillips "has proved" that the Bishop of Rome had
patriarchal rights over places outside the limits of the ten provinces of the
vicarius urbis; but does not agree with Phillips in thinking Rufinus in

86

error. As a matter of fact the point is a difficult one, and has little to do
with the gist of the meaning of the canon. One thing is certain: the early
Latin version of the canons, called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the
Greek wording and made the Canon read thus: "It is of ancient custom that
the bishop of the city of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so
that he should govern with care the suburban places, And All His Ow n
Province ." Another interesting reading is that found in several MSS.
which begins, "The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy
(primatum)" and as a matter of fact the early date of this addition is
evinced by the fact that the canon was actually quoted in this shape by
Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon.

Hefele further on says, "The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon
(of the twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of the
Canons of Nice, that this sixth canon confirms the rights of the Bishop of
Rome as patriarch over the whole West," and refers to Beveridge's
Syodicon, Tom. I., pp. 66 and 67. After diligent search I can find nothing
to warrant the great amplitude of this statement. Balsamon' s
interpretation is very vague, being simply that the Bishop of Rome is over
the Western Eparchies (xdiv earcepicov £7tap%icov) and Zonaras still
more vaguely says that T(5v earcepicov ap%aiv e9o<; kKpaxr\ae. That
the whole West was in a general way understood to be in the Roman
Patriarchate I have no doubt, that the Greek scholiasts just quoted deemed
it to be so I think most probably the case, but it does not seem to me that
they have said so in the particular place cited. It seems to me that all they
meant to say was that the custom observed at Alexandria and Antioch was
no purely Eastern and local thing, for a similar state of affairs was found in
the West.

87

CANON VII

Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia
[i.e., Jerusalem] should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the
Metropolis, have the next place of honor.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

Let the Bishop of Aelia be honored, the rights of the Metropolis being
preserved intact.

There would seem to be a singular fitness in the Holy City Jerusalem
holding a very exalted position among the sees of Christendom, and it may
appear astonishing that in the earliest times it was only a suffragan see to
the great Church of Caesarea. It must be remembered, however, that only
about seventy years after our Lord's death the city of Jerusalem was
entirely destroyed and ploughed as a field according to the prophet. As a
holy city Jerusalem was a thing of the past for long years, and it is only in
the beginning of the second century that we find a strong Christian Church
growing up in the rapidly increasing city, called no longer Jerusalem, but
aelia Capitolina. Possibly by the end of the second century the idea of the
holiness of the site began to lend dignity to the occupant of the see; at all
events Eusebius tells us that "at a synod held on the subject of the Easter
controversy in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Caesarea and
Narcissus of Jerusalem were presidents."

It was this feeling of reverence which induced the passing of this seventh
canon. It is very hard to determine just what was the "precedence" granted
to the Bishop of Aelia, nor is it clear which is the metropolis referred to in
the last clause. Most writers, including Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and

88

Beveridge consider it to be Caesarea; while Zonaras thinks Jerusalem to be
intended, a view recently adopted and defended by Fuchs; others again
suppose it is Antioch that is referred to.

89

EXCURSUS ON THE RISE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF

JERUSALEM.

The narrative of the successive steps by which the See of Jerusalem rose
from being nothing but Aelia, a Gentile city, into one of the five patriarchal
sees is sad reading for a Christian. It is but the record of ambition and,
worse still, of knavery. No Christian can for a moment grudge to the Holy
City of the old dispensation the honor shewn it by the Church, but he
may well wish that the honor had been otherwise obtained. A careful
study of such records as we possess shews that until the fifth century the
Metropolitan of Caesarea as often took precedence of the Bishop of
Jerusalem as vice versa, and Beveridge has taken great pains to shew that
the learned De Marca is in error in supposing that the Council of Nice
assigned to Jerusalem a dignity superior to Caesarea, and only inferior to
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. It is true that in the signatures the Bishop
of Jerusalem does sign before his metropolitan, but to this Beveridge justly
replies that the same is the case with the occupants of two other of his
suffragan sees. Bishop Beveridge' s opinion is that the Council assigned
Jerusalem the second place in the province, such as London enjoys in the
Province of Canterbury. This, however, would seem to be as much too
little as De Marca' s contention grants too much. It is certain that almost
immediately after the Council had adjourned, the Bishop of Jerusalem,
Maximus, convoked a synod of Palestine, without any reference to
Caesarea, which consecrated bishops and acquitted St. Athanasius. It is
true that he was reprimanded for doing so, but yet it clearly shews how lie
intended to understand the action of Nice. The matter was not decided for
a century more, and then through the chicanery of Juvenal the bishop of
Jerusalem.

(Canon Venables, Diet. Christ. Biography.)

Juvenalis succeeded Praylius as bishop of Jerusalem somewhere about 420
A.D. The exact year cannot be determined. The episcopate of Praylius,
which commenced in 417 A.D., was but short, and we can hardly give it at

90

most more than three years. The statement of Cyril of Scythopolis, in his
Life of St. Euthymius (c. 96), that Juvenal died "in the forty-fourth year
of his episcopate," 458 A.D., is certainly incorrect, as it would make his
episcopate begin in 414 A.D., three years before that of his predecessor.
Juvenal occupies a prominent position during the Nestorian and Eutychian
troubles towards the middle of the fifth century. But the part played by
him at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as at the disgraceful
^poxpiKri ovvodoq of 449, was more conspicuous than creditable, and
there are few of the actors in these turbulent and saddening scenes who
leave a more unpleasing impression. The ruling object of Juvenal's
episcopate, to which everything else was secondary, and which guided all
his conduct, was the elevation of the see of Jerusalem from the subordinate
position it held in accordance with the seventh of the canons of the council
of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Caesarea, to a primary
place in the episcopate. Not content with aspiring to metropolitan rank,
Juvenal coveted patriarchal dignity, and, in defiance of all canonical
authority, he claimed jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from
which he sought to remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own
province. At the council of Ephesus, in 431, he asserted for "the apostolic
see of Jerusalem the same rank and authority with the apostolic see of
Rome" (Labbe, Concil 3:642). These falsehoods he did not scruple to
support with forged documents ("insolenter ausus per commentitia scripta
firmare," Leo. Mag. Ep. 1 19), and other disgraceful artifices. Scarcely had
Juvenal been consecrated bishop of Jerusalem when he proceeded to assert
his claims to the metropolitan rank by his acts. In the letter of
remonstrance against the proceedings of the council of Ephesus, sent to
Theodosius by the Oriental party, they complain that Juvenal, whose
"ambitious designs and juggling tricks" they are only too well acquainted
with, had ordained in provinces over which he had no jurisdiction (Labbe,
Concil. 3:728). This audacious attempt to set at nought the Nicene
decrees, and to falsify both history and tradition was regarded with the
utmost indignation by the leaders of the Christian church. Cyril of
Alexandria shuddered at the impious design ("merito perhorrescens," Leo.
u. s.), and wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of Rome, informing him of what
Juvenal was undertaking, and begging that his unlawful attempts might
have no sanction from the apostolic See ("ut nulla illicitis conatibus
praeberetur assensio," u. s.). Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally

91

in his campaign against Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the
council met at Ephesus Juvenal was allowed, without the slightest
remonstrance, to take precedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea, and to
occupy the position of vice-president of the council, coming next after
Cyril himself (Labbe, Concil. 3:445), and was regarded in all respects as
the second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his
supremacy over the bishop of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next
after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance, and his
pretensions were at least tacitly allowed. At the next council, the
disgraceful Latrocinium, Juvenal occupied the third place, after Dioscorus
and the papal legate, having been specially named by Theodosius, together
with Thalassius of Caesarea (who appears to have taken no umbrage at his
suffragan being preferred before him), as next in authority to Dioscorus
(Labbe, Concil. 4:109), and he took a leading part in the violent
proceedings of that assembly. When the council of Chalcedon met, one of
the matters which came before it for settlement was the dispute as to
priority between Juvenal and Maximus Bishop of Antioch. The
contention was long and severe. It ended in a compromise agreed on in the
Seventh Action, u.eToc 7toXXr|V cpiXoveiKiocv Juvenal surrendered his
claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of his being
allowed metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (Labbe,
Concil. 4:613). The claim to patriarchal authority over the Bishop of
Antioch put forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. The difficulty
presented by the Nicene canon does not appear to have presented itself to
the council, nor was any one found to urge the undoubted claims of the see
of Caesarea. The terms arranged between Maximus and Juvenal were
regarded as satisfactory, and received the consent of the assembled
bishops (ibid. 618). Maximus, however, was not long in repenting of his
too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and wrote a letter of
complaint to pope Leo, who replied by the letter which has been already
quoted, dated June 11, 453 A.D., in which he upheld the binding authority
of the Nicene canons, and commenting in the strongest terms on the
greediness and ambition of Juvenal, who allowed no opportunity of
forwarding his ends to be lost, declared that as far as he was concerned he
would do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity of the see of Antioch
(Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum, 119). No further action, however, seems to
have been taken either by Leo or by Maximus. Juvehal was left master of

92

the situation, and the church of Jerusalem has from that epoch peaceably
enjoyed the patriarchal dignity obtained for it by such base means.

93

CANON vm

Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the
Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that
they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is
before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they
will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church;
in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been
twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a
period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so
that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are
found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same
rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a
bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop
of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named
bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter,
unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honor
of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop
provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he
may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two
bishops in the city.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

If those called Cathari come over, let them first make profession that they
are willing to communicate with the twice married, and to grant pardon to
the lapsed. And on this condition he who happens to be in orders, shall
continue in the same order, so that a bishop shall still be bishop. Whoever

94

was a bishop among the Cathari let him, however, become a
Chorepiscopus, or let him enjoy the honor of a presbyter or of a bishop.
For in one church there shall not be two bishops.

The Cathari or Novatians were the followers of Novatian, a presbyter of
Rome, who had been a Stoic philosopher and was delivered, according to
his own story, from diabolical possession at his exorcising by the Church
before his baptism, when becoming a Catechumen. Being in peril of death
by illness he received clinical baptism, and was ordained priest without
any further sacred rites being administered to him. During the persecution
he constantly refused to assist his brethren, and afterwards raised his voice
against what he considered their culpable laxity in admitting to penance the
lapsed. Many agreed with him in this, especially of the clergy, and
eventually, in A.D. 251, he induced three bishops to consecrate him, thus
becoming, as Fleury remarks, "the first Anti-Pope." His indignation was
principally spent upon Pope Cornelius, and to overthrow the prevailing
discipline of the Church he ordained bishops and sent them to different
parts of the empire as the disseminators of his error. It is well to remember
that while beginning only as a schismatic, he soon fell into heresy, denying
that the Church had the power to absolve the lapsed. Although condemned
by several councils his sect continued on, and like the Montanists they
rebaptized Catholics who apostatized to them, and absolutely rejected all
second marriages. At the time of the Council of Nice the Novatian bishop
at Constantinople, Acesius, was greatly esteemed, and although a
schismatic, was invited to attend the council. After having in answer to the
emperor's enquiry whether he was willing to sign the Creed, assured him
that he was, he went on to explain that his separation was because the
Church no longer observed the ancient discipline which forbade that those
who had committed mortal sin should ever be readmitted to communion.
According to the Novatians he might be exhorted to repentance, but the
Church had no power to assure him of forgiveness but must leave him to
the judgment of God. It was then that Constantine said, "Acesius, take a
ladder, and climb up to heaven alone."

95

ARISTENUS.

If any of them be bishops or chorepiscopi they shall remain in the same
rank, unless perchance in the same city there be found a bishop of the
Catholic Church, ordained before their coming. For in this case he that was
properly bishop from the first shall have the preference, and he alone shall
retain the Episcopal throne. For it is not right that in the same city there
should be two bishops. But he who by the Cathari was called bishop, shall
be honored as a presbyter, or (if it so please the bishop), he shall be sharer
of the title bishop; but he shall exercise no episcopal jurisdiction.

Zonaras, Balsamon, Beveridge and Van Espen, are of opinion that
XeipoGeTODuivoix; does not mean that they are to receive a new laying
on of hands at their reception into the Church, but that it refers to their
already condition of being ordained, the meaning being that as they have
had Novatian ordination they must be reckoned among the clergy.
Dionysius Exiguus takes a different view, as does also the Prisca version,
according to which the clergy of the Novatians were to receive a laying on
of hands, xeipoQexov\ievovc, but that it was not to be a reordination.
With this interpretation Hefele seems to agree, founding his opinion upon
the fact that the article is wanting before xeipoOe'cotiu.evo'uc; and that
ocuxo-ix; is added. Gratian supposes that this eighth canon orders a
reordination.

96
EXCURSUS ON THE CHOREPISCOPI

There has been much difference of opinion among the learned touching the
status of the Chorepiscopus in the early Church. The main question in
dispute is as to whether they were always, sometimes, or never, in
episcopal orders. Most Anglican writers, including Beveridge, Hammond,
Cave, and Routh, have affirmed the first proposition, that they were true
bishops, but that, out of respect to the bishop of the City they were
forbidden the exercise of certain of their episcopal functions, except upon
extraordinary occasions. With this view Binterim also agrees, and Augusti
is of the same opinion. But Thomassinus is of a different mind, thinking,
so says Hefele, that there were "two classes of chorepiscopi, of whom the
one were real bishops, while the other had only the title without
consecration."

The third opinion, that they were merely presbyters, is espoused by
Morinus and Du Cange, and others who are named by Bingham. This last
opinion is now all but universally rejected, to the other two we shall now
devote our attention.

For the first opinion no one can speak more learnedly nor more
authoritatively than Arthur West Haddon, who writes as follows;

(Haddon, Diet. Christ. Antiq. s. 5:Chorepiscopus.)

The chorepiscopus was called into existence in the latter part of the third
century, and first in Asia Minor, in order to meet the want of episcopal
supervision in the country parts of the now enlarged dioceses without
subdivision. [They are] first mentioned in the Councils of Ancyra and
Neo-Caesarea A. D. 314, and again in the Council of Nice (which is
subscribed by fifteen, all from Asia Minor or Syria). [They became]
sufficiently important to require restriction by the time of the Council of
Antioch, A. D. 341; and continued to exist in the East until at least the
ninth century, when they were supplanted by e^ocp%oi [Chorepiscopi
are] first mentioned in the West in the Council of Riez, A. D. 439 (the
Epistles of Pope Damasus I. and of Leo. M. respecting them being
forgeries), and continued there (but not in Africa, principally in France)

97

until about the tenth century, after which the name occurs (in a decree of
Pope Damasus II. ap. Sigeb. in an. 1048) as equivalent to archdeacon, an
office from which the Arabic Nicene canons expressly distinguish it. The
functions of chorepiscopi, as well as their name, were of an episcopal, not
of a presbyterial kind, although limited to minor offices. They overlooked
the country district committed to them, "loco episcopi" ordaining readers,
exorcists, subdeacons, but, as a rule, not deacons or presbyters (and of
course not bishops), unless by express permission of their diocesan
bishop. They confirmed in their own districts, and (in Gaul) are mentioned
as consecrating churches (vide Du Cange). They granted elpeviKoci or
letters dimissory, which country presbyters were forbidden to do. They
had also the honorary privilege (7tiux6jj,evoi) of assisting at the celebration
of the Holy Eucharist in the mother city church, which country presbyters
had not {Cone. Ancyr. can. xiii.; Neo-Caesar. can. xiv.;Antioch, can. x.; St.
Basil M. Epist. 181; Rab. Maur. De Instit. Cler. 1:5, etc. etc.). They were
held therefore to have power of ordination, but to lack jurisdiction, save
subordinately. And the actual ordination of a presbyter by Timotheus, a
chorepiscopus, is recorded (Pallad., Hist. Lausiac. 106).

In the West, i.e. chiefly in Gaul, the order appears to have prevailed more
widely, to have usurped episcopal functions without due subordination to
the diocesans, and to have been also taken advantage of by idle or worldly
diocesans. In consequence it seems to have aroused a strong feeling of
hostility, which showed itself, first in a series of papal bulls, condemning
them; headed, it is true, by two forged letters respectively of Damasus I.
and Leo. M. (of which the latter is merely an interpolated version of Cone.
Hispal. II. A.D. 619, can. 7, adding chorepiscopi to presbyteri, of which
latter the council really treats), but continuing in a more genuine form,
from Leo III. down to Pope Nicholas I. (to Rodolph, Archbishop of
Bourges, A.D. 864); the last of whom, however, takes the more moderate
line of affirming chorepiscopi to be really bishops, and consequently
refusing to annul their ordinations of presbyters and deacons (as previous
popes had done), but orders them to keep within canonical limits; and
secondly, in a series of conciliar decrees, Cone. Ratispon. A.D. 800, in
Capit. lib. 4:c. 1, Paris. A.D. 829, lib. i.e. 27; Meld. A.D. 845, can. 44;
Metens. A.D. 888, can. 8, and Capital. 5:168, 6:119, 7:187, 310, 323, 324,
annulling all episcopal acts of chorepiscopi, and ordering them to be

98

repeated by "true" bishops; and finally forbidding all further
appointments of chorepiscopi at all.

That chorepiscopi as such — i.e. omitting the cases of reconciled or vacant
bishops above mentioned, of whose episcopate of course no question is
made — were at first truly bishops both in East and West, appears almost
certain, both from their name and functions, and even from the arguments
of their strong opponents just spoken of. If nothing more could be urged
against them, than that the Council of Neo-Caesarea compared them to the
Seventy disciples, that the Council of Antioch authorizes their
consecration by a single bishop, and that they actually were so
consecrated (the Antiochene decree might mean merely nomination by the
word yiveaGoci but the actual history seems to rule the term to intend
consecration, and the [one] exceptional case of a chorepiscopus recorded
[Actt. Episc. Cenoman. op. Du Cange] in late times to have been ordained
by three bishops [in order that he might be a full bishop] merely proves
the general rule to the contrary) — and that they were consecrated for
"villages," contrary to canon, — then they certainly were bishops. And
Pope Nicholas expressly says that they were so. Undoubtedly they
ceased to be so in the East, and were practically merged in archdeacons in
the West.

For the second opinion, its great champion, Thomassinus shall speak.

(Thomassin, Ancienne etNouvelle Discipline de I'Eglise, Tom. I. Livre II.
chap 1. iii.)

The chorepiscopi were not duly consecrated bishops, unless some bishop
had consecrated a bishop for a town and the bishop thus ordained contrary
to the canons was tolerated on condition of his submitting himself to the
diocesan as though he were only a chorepiscopus. This may be gathered
from the fifty- seventh canon of Laodicea.

From this canon two conclusions may be drawn, 1st. That bishops ought
not to be ordained for villages, and that as Chorepiscopi could only be
placed in villages they could not be bishops. 2d. That sometimes by

99

accident a chorepiscopus might be a bishop, but only through having been
canonically lowered to that rank.

The Council of Nice furnishes another example of a bishop lowered to the
rank of a chorepiscopus in Canon viii. This canon shows that they should
not have been bishops, for two bishops could never be in a diocese,
although this might accidentally be the case when a chorepiscopus
happened to be a bishop.

This is the meaning which must be given to the tenth canon of Antioch,
which directs that chorepiscopi, even if they have received episcopal
orders, and have been consecrated bishops, shall keep within the limits
prescribed by the canon; that in cases of necessity, they ordain the lower
clergy; but that they be careful not to ordain priests or deacons, because
this power is absolutely reserved to the Diocesan. It must be added that as
the council of Antioch commands that the Diocesan without any other
bishop can ordain the chorepiscopus, the position can no longer be
sustained that the chorepiscopi were bishops, such a method of
consecrating a bishop being contrary to canon XIX of the same council,
moreover the canon does not say the chorepiscopus is to be ordained, but
uses the word yeveaGoci by the bishop of the city (canon x.). The Council
of Neocaesarea by referring them to the seventy disciples (in Canon XIV.)
has shown the chorepiscopi to be only priests.

But the Council of Ancyra does furnish a difficulty, for the text seems to
permit chorepiscopi to ordain priests. But the Greek text must be
corrected by the ancient Latin versions. The letter attributed to pope
Nicholas, A.D. 864, must be considered a forgery since he recognizes the
chorepiscopi as real bishops.

If Harmenopulus, Aristenus, Balsamon, and Zonaras seem to accord to the
chorepiscopi the power to ordain priests and deacons with the permission
of the Diocesan, it is because they are explaining the meaning and setting
forth the practice of the ancient councils and not the practice of their own
times. But at all events it is past all doubt that before the seventh century
there were, by different accidents, chorepiscopi who were really bishops
and that these could, with the consent of the diocesan, ordain priests. But
at the time these authors wrote, there was not a single chorepiscopus in

100

the entire East, as Balsamon frankly admits in commenting on Canon XIII
of Ancyra.

Whether in the foregoing the reader will think Thomassinus has proved his
point, I do not know, but so far as the position of the chorepiscopi in
synods is concerned there can be no doubt whatever, and I shall allow
Hefele to speak on this point.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 17, 18.)

The Chorepiscopi (%cop£7tiGK07toi), or bishops of country places, seem
to have been considered in ancient times as quite on a par with the other
bishops, as far as their position in synod was concerned. We meet with
them at the Councils of Neocaesarea in the year 3 14, of Nicaea in 325, of
Ephesus in 431. On the other hand, among the 600 bishops of the fourth
Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, there is no chorepiscopus
present, for by this time the office had been abolished; but in the Middle
Ages we again meet with chorepiscopi of a new kind at Western councils,
particularly at those of the French Church, at Langres in 830, at Mayence
in 847, at Pontion in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871.

101

CANON IX

If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon
examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in
violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding their
confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church
requires that [only] which is blameless.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Whoever are ordained without examination, shall be deposed if it be found
out afterwards that they had been guilty.

HEFELE

The crimes in question are those which were a bar to the priesthood —
such as blasphemy, bigamy, heresy, idolatry, magic, etc. — as the Arabic
paraphrase of Joseph explains. It is clear that these faults are punishable in
the bishop no less than in the priest, and that consequently our canon
refers to the bishops as well as to the 7tpea|3\)Tepoi in the more restricted
sense. These words of the Greek text, "In the case in which any one might
be induced, in opposition to the canon, to ordain such persons," allude to
the ninth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea. It was necessary to pass
such ordinances; for even in the fifth century, as the twenty-second letter
to Pope Innocent the First testifies, some held that as baptism effaces all
former sins, so it takes away all the impedimenta ordinationis which are
the results of those sins.

102

BALSAMON

Some say that as baptism makes the baptized person a new man, so
ordination takes away the sins committed before ordination, which
opinion does not seem to agree with the canons.

This canon occurs twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum Pars I.
Dist. 24:c. vij., and Dist. lxxxj., c. iv.

103

CANON X

If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even
with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the
canon of the Church for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

Whoso had lapsed are to be deposed whether those who ordained and
promoted them did so conscious of their guilt or unknowing of it.

HEFELE

The tenth canon differs from the ninth, inasmuch as it concerns only the
lapsi and their elevation, not only to the priesthood, but to any other
ecclesiastical preferment as well, and requires their deposition. The
punishment of a bishop who should consciously perform such an
ordination is not mentioned; but it is incontestable that the lapsi could not
be ordained, even after having performed penance; for, as the preceding
canon states, the Church requires those who were faultless. It is to be
observed that the word 7tpo%eipi£eiv is evidently employed here in the
sense of "ordain," and is used without any distinction from %eipi^eiv
whilst in the synodal letter of the Council of Nicaea on the subject of the
Meletians, there is a distinction between these two words, and
7ipo%eipi£eiv is used to signify eligere.

This canon is found in Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum. Pars I. Dist.
81:c. v.

104

CANON XI

Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the
spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during
the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have
deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as
were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among
the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years
they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore undeserving of
indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown them and they shall be
prostrators for twelve years.

On the expression "without oblation" (%copi<; 7tpoa(pop&<;) see the notes
to Ancyra, Canon V. where the matter is treated at some length.

LAMBERT

The usual position of the hearers was just inside the church door. But
Zonaras (and Balsamon agrees with him), in his comment on this canon,
says, "they are ordered for three years to be hearers, or to stand without
the church in the narthex."

105

I have read "as many as were communicants" (01 Ttioxoi) thus following
Dr. Routh. Vide his Opuscula. Caranza translates in his Summary of the
Councils "if they were faithful" and seems to have read ei tugtoi, which
is much simpler and makes better sense.

ZONARAS

The prostrators stood within the body of the church behind the ambo [i.e.
the reading desk] and went out with the catechumens.

106

EXCURSUS ON THE PUBLIC DISCIPLINE OR EXOMOLOGESIS
OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

(Taken chiefly from Morinus, De Disciplina in Administratione
Sacramenti Poenitentioe; Bingham, Antiquities; and Hammond, The
Definitions of Faith, etc. Note to Canon XL of Nice.)

"In the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that at the beginning
of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to
open penance, and punished in this world that their souls might be saved
in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example,
might be the more afraid to offend."

The foregoing words from the Commination Service of the Church of
England may serve well to introduce this subject. In the history of the
public administration of discipline in the Church, there are three periods
sufficiently distinctly marked. The first of these ends at the rise of
Novatianism in the middle of the second century; the second stretches
down to about the eighth century; and the third period shews its gradual
decline to its practical abandonment in the eleventh century. The period
with which we are concerned is the second, when it was in full force.

In the first period it would seem that public penance was required only of
those convicted of what then were called by pre-eminence "mortal sins"
(crimena mortalia), viz: idolatry, murder, and adultery. But in the second
period the list of mortal sins was greatly enlarged, and Morinus says that
"Many Fathers who wrote after Augustine's time, extended the necessity
of public penance to all crimes which the civil law punished with death,
exile, or other grave corporal penalty." In the penitential canons ascribed
to St. Basil and those which pass by the name of St. Gregory Nyssen, this
increase of offenses requiring public penance will be found intimated.

From the fourth century the penitents of the Church were divided into
four classes. Three of these are mentioned in the eleventh canon, the
fourth, which is not here referred to, was composed of those styled
ovyKXaiovxec, flentes or weepers. These were not allowed to enter into
the body of the church at all, but stood or lay outside the gates, sometimes

107

covered with sackcloth and ashes. This is the class which is sometimes
styled %ai(j,o^o(xevoihybernantes, on account of their being obliged to
endure the inclemency of the weather.

It may help to the better understanding of this and other canons which
notice the different orders of penitents, to give a brief account of the usual
form and arrangement of the ancient churches as well as of the different
orders of the penitents.

Before the church there was commonly either an open area surrounded
with porticoes, called u-eaoroXiov or atrium, with a font of water in the
center, styled a cantharus or phiala, or sometimes only an open portico, or
nponvXaiov. The first variety may still be seen at S. Ambrogio's in
Milan, and the latter in Rome at S. Lorenzo's, and in Ravenna at the two
S. Apollinares. This was the place at which the first and lowest order of
penitents, the weepers, already referred to, stood exposed to the weather.
Of these, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus says: "Weeping takes place outside
the door of the church, where the sinner must stand and beg the prayers of
the faithful as they go in."

The church itself usually consisted of three divisions within, besides these
exterior courts and porch. The first part after passing through "the great
gates," or doors of the building, was called the Narthex in Greek, and
Faerula in Latin, and was a narrow vestibule extending the whole width of
the church. In this part, to which Jews and Gentiles, and in most places
even heretics and schismatics were admitted, stood the Catechumens, and
the Energumens or those afflicted with evil spirits, and the second class of
penitents (the first mentioned in the Canon), who were called the
6cko(5|X£voi audientes, or hearers. These were allowed to hear the
Scriptures read, and the Sermon preached, but were obliged to depart
before the celebration of the Divine Mysteries, with the Catechumens, and
the others who went by the general name of hearers only.

The second division, or main body of the church, was called the Naos or
Nave. This was separated from the Narthex by rails of wood, with gates in
the center, which were called "the beautiful or royal gates." In the middle
of the Nave, but rather toward the lower or entrance part of it, stood the
Ambo, or reading-desk, the place for the readers and singers, to which they
went up by steps, whence the name, Ambo. Before coming to the Ambo,

108

in the lowest part of the Nave, and just after passing the royal gates, was
the place for the third order of penitents, called in Greek yovt)KX'ivovTe<;
or vnoninxoyxec,, and in Latin Genuflectentes or Prostrati, i.e., kneelers
or prostrators, because they were allowed to remain and join in certain
prayers particularly made for them. Before going out they prostrated
themselves to receive the imposition of the bishop's hands with prayer.
This class of penitents left with the Catechumens.

In the other parts of the Nave stood the believers or faithful, i.e., those
persons wire were in full communion with the Church, the men and
women generally on opposite sides, though in some places the men were
below, and the women in galleries above. Amongst these were the fourth
class of penitents, who were called (xuveaTCOTec;, consistentes, i.e.,
co-standers, because they were allowed to stand with the faithful, and to
remain and hear the prayers of the Church, after the Catechumens and the
other penitents were dismissed, and to be present while the faithful
offered and communicated, though they might not themselves make their
offerings, nor partake of the Holy Communion. This class of penitents are
frequently mentioned in the canons, as "communicating in prayers," or
"without the oblation;" and it was the last grade to be passed through
previous to the being admitted again to full communion. The practice of
"hearing mass" or "non-communicating attendance" clearly had its origin in
this stage of discipline. At the upper end of the body of the church, and
divided from it by rails which were called Cancelli, was that part which we
now call the Chancel. This was anciently called by several names, as Bema
or tribunal, from its being raised above the body of the church, and
Sacrarium or Sanctuary. It was also called Apsis and Concha Bematis,
from its semicircular end. In this part stood the Altar, or Holy Table
(which names were indifferently used in the primitive Church), behind
which, and against the wall of the chancel, was the Bishop's throne, with
the seats of the Presbyters on each side of it, called synthronus. On one
side of the chancel was the repository for the sacred utensils and
vestments, called the Diaconicum, and answering to our Vestry; and on the
other the Prothesis, a side-table, or place, where the bread and wine were
deposited before they were offered on the Altar. The gates in the chancel
rail were called the holy gates, and none but the higher orders of the clergy,
i.e., Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were allowed to enter within them.

109

The Emperor indeed was permitted to do so for the purpose of making his
offering at the Altar, but then he was obliged to retire immediately, and to
receive the communion without.

(Thomassin. Ancienne etNouvelle Discipline de VEglise. Tom. I. Livre II.
chap. xvj. somewhat abridged.)

In the West there existed always many cases of public penance, but in the
East it is more difficult to find any traces of it, after it was abolished by
the Patriarch Nectarius in the person of the Grand Penitentiary

However, the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, who took the empire in the year
1080, did a penance like that of older days, and one which may well pass
for miraculous. He called together a large number of bishops with the
patriarch, and some holy religious; be presented himself before them in the
garb of a criminal; he confessed to them his crime of usurpation with all its
circumstances. They condemned the Emperor and all his accomplices to
fasting, to lying prostrate upon the earth, to wearing haircloth, and to all
the other ordinary austerities of penance. Their wives desired to share
their griefs and their sufferings, although they had had no share in their
crime. The whole palace became a theater of sorrow and public penance.
The emperor wore the hairshirt under the purple, and lay upon the earth
for forty days, having only a stone for a pillow.

To all practical purposes Public Penance was a general institution but for a
short while in the Church. But the reader must be careful to distinguish
between this Public Penance and the private confession which in the
Catholic Church both East and West is universally practiced. What
Nectarius did was to abolish the office of Penitentiary, whose duty it had
been to assignpublic penance for secret sin; a thing wholly different from
what Catholics understand by the "Sacrament of Penance." It would be
out of place to do more in this place than to call the reader's attention to
the bare fact, and to supply him, from a Roman Catholic point of view,
with an explanation of why Public Penance died out. "It came to an end
because it was of human institution. But sacramental confession, being of
divine origin, lasted when the penitential discipline had been changed, and
continues to this day among the Greeks and Oriental sects." That the

110

reader may judge of the absolute can-dour of the writer just quoted, I give
a few sentences from the same article: "An opinion, however, did prevail
to some extent in the middle ages, even among Catholics, that confession
to God alone sufficed. The Council of Chalons in 813 (canon xxxiij.), says:
'Some assert that we should confess our sins to God alone, but some think
that they should be confessed to the priest, each of which practices is
followed not without great fruit in Holy Church.... Confession made to
God purges sins, but that made to the priest teaches how they are to be
purged.' This former opinion is also mentioned without reprobation by
Peter Lombard (bi Sentent. Lib. 4:dist. xvij.)."

Ill

CANON XII

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast
aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own
vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their
military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three
years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is
necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance
appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by
deeds, and not pretense, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good
works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may
properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine
yet more favorably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with
indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is
sufficient for their conversion, must fulfill the whole time. NOTES.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who
afterwards yielded go wickedness, and returned to the army, shall be
excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which they do
their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing penance
shews himself zealous in its performance, the bishop shall treat him more
leniently than had he been cold and indifferent.

LAMBERT

The abuse of this power, namely, of granting under certain circumstances a
relaxation in the penitential exercises enjoined by the canons — led, in later

112

times, to the practice of commuting such exercises for money payments,
etc.

HEFELE

In his last contests with Constantine, Licinius had made himself the
representative of heathenism; so that the final issue of the war would not
be the mere triumph of one of the two competitors, but the triumph or fall
of Christianity or heathenism. Accordingly, a Christian who had in this
war supported the cause of Licinius and of heathenism might be
considered as a lapsus, even if he did not formally fall away. With much
more reason might those Christians be treated as lapsi who, having
conscientiously given up military service (this is meant by the soldier's
belt), afterwards retracted their resolution, and went so far as to give
money and presents for the sake of readmission, on account of the
numerous advantages which military service then afforded. It must not be
forgotten that Licinius, as Zonaras and Eusebius relate, required from his
soldiers a formal apostasy; compelled them, for example, to take part in
the heathen sacrifices which were held in the camps, and dismissed from
his service those who would not apostatize.

BRIGHT

This canon (which in the Prisca and the Isidorian version stands as part of
canon 1 1) deals, like it, with cases which had arisen under the Eastern reign
of Licinius, who having resolved to "purge his army of all ardent
Christians" (Mason, Persec. ofDiocl. p. 308), ordered his Christian
officers to sacrifice to the gods on pain of being cashiered (compare Euseb.
H. E. 10:8; Vit. Con. 1:54). It is to be observed here that military life as
such was not deemed unchristian. The case of Cornelius was born in mind.
"We serve in your armies," says Tertullian, Apol. 42 (although later, as a
Montanist, he took a rigorist and fanatical view, De Cor. 11), and compare

113

the fact which underlies the tale of the "Thundering Legion," — the
presence of Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius. It was the
heathenish adjuncts to their calling which often brought Christian soldiers
to a stand (see Routh. Scr. Opusc. 1:410), as when Marinus' succession to
a centurionship was challenged on the ground that he could not sacrifice to
the gods (Euseb. H. E. 7:15). Sometimes, indeed, individual Christians
thought like Maximilian in the Martyrology, who absolutely refused to
enlist, and on being told by the proconsul that there were Christian
soldiers in the imperial service, answered, "Ipsi sciunt quod ipsis
expediat" (Ruinart,Art. Sane. p. 341). But, says Bingham (Antiq. 11:5,
10), "the ancient canons did not condemn the military life as a vocation
simply unlawful.... I believe there is no instance of any man being refused
baptism merely because he was a soldier, unless some unlawful
circumstance, such as idolatry, or the like, made the vocation sinful." After
the victory of Constantine in the West, the Council of Aries
excommunicated those who in time of peace "threw away their arms" (can.
2). In the case before us, some Christian officers had at first stood firm
under the trial imposed on them by Licinius. They had been "called by
grace" to an act of self-sacrifice (the phrase is one which St. Augustine
might have used); and had shown "their eagerness at the outset" ("primum
suum ardorem," Dionysius; Philo and Evarestus more laxly, "primordia
bona;" compare xr\\ 6cydc7tr|v gov ir\\ Ttpcoxriv Revelation 2:4). Observe
here how beautifully the ideas of grace and free will are harmonized. These
men had responded to a Divine impulse: it might seem that they had
committed themselves to a noble course: they had cast aside the "belts"
which were their badge of office (compare the cases of Valentinian and
Valens, Soc. 3:13, and of Benevoins throwing down his belt at the feet of
Justina, Soz. 7:13). They had done, in fact, just what Auxentius, one of
Licinius' notaries, had done when, according to the graphic anecdote of
Philostorgius (Fragm. 5), his master bade him place a bunch of grapes
before a statue of Bacchus in the palace-court; but their zeal, unlike his,
proved to be too impulsive — they reconsidered their position, and
illustrated the maxim that in morals second thoughts are not best (Butler,
Serm. 7), by making unworthy attempts — in some cases by bribery — to
recover what they had worthily resigned. (Observe the Grecised Latinism
Peve(piKioi<; and compare the Latinisms of St. Mark, and others in Euseb.
3:20, 6:40, 10:5.) This the Council describes in proverbial language,

114

probably borrowed from 2 Peter 2:22, but, it is needless to say, without
intending to censure enlistment as such. They now desired to be received
to penance: accordingly they were ordered to spend three years as
Hearers, during which time "their purpose, and the nature (e'i8o<;) of their
repentance" were to be carefully "examined." Again we see the earnest
resolution of the Council to make discipline a moral reality, and to prevent
it from being turned into a formal routine; to secure, as Rufinus'
abridgment expresses it, a repentance "fructuosam et attentam." If the
penitents were found to have "manifested their conversion by deeds, and
not in outward show (a%r\\xaxi), by awe, and tears, and patience, and good
works" (such, for instance, Zonaras comments, as almsgiving according to
ability), "it would be then reasonable to admit them to a participation in
the prayers," to the position of Consistentes, "with permission also to the
bishop to come to a yet more indulgent resolution concerning them," by
admitting them to full communion. This discretionary power of the bishop
to dispense with part of a penance-time is recognized in the fifth canon of
Ancyra and the sixteenth of Chalcedon, and mentioned by Basil, Epist.
217, c. 74. It was the basis of "indulgences "in their original form
(Bingham, 18:4, 9). But it was too possible that some at least of these
"lapsi" might take the whole affair lightly, "with indifference" oc8ioccp6pco<;
-not seriously enough, as Hervetas renders — just as if, in common
parlance, it did not signify: the fourth Ancyrene canon speaks of lapsi
who partook of the idol-feast dSioccpopccx; as if it involved them in no sin
(see below on Eph. 5, Chalc. 4). It was possible that they might "deem"
the outward form of "entering the church" to stand in the narthex among
the Hearers (here, as in c. 8, 19, a%f|u.oc denotes an external visible fact)
sufficient to entitle them to the character of converted penitents, while
their conduct out of church was utterly lacking in seriousness and
self-humiliation. In that case there could be no question of shortening their
penance, time, for they were not in a state to benefit by indulgence: it
would be, as the Roman Presbyters wrote to Cyprian, and as he himself
wrote to his own church, a "mere covering over of the wound" (Epist. 30,
3), an "injury" rather than "a kindness" (De Lapsis, 16); they must
therefore "by all means" go through ten years as Kneelers, before they can
become Consistentes.

115

There is great difficulty about the last phrase and Gelasius of Cyzicus, the
Prisca, Dionysius Exiguus, the pseudo-Isidore, Zonaras and most others
have considered the "not" an interpolation. I do not see how dropping the
"not" makes the meaning materially clearer.

116

CANON xm

Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be
maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not
be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one
should be restored to health again who has received the communion when
his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in
prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person
whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after
examination made, give it him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

The dying are to be communicated. But if any such get well, he must be
placed in the number of those who share in the prayers, and with these
only.

VAN ESPEN

It cannot be denied that antiquity used the name "Viaticum "not only to
denote the Eucharist which was given to the dying, but also to denote the
reconciliation, and imposition of penance, and in general, everything that
could be conducive to the happy death of the person concerned, and this
has been shown by Aubespine (lib. 1, Obs. cap. ii.). But while this is so,
the more usual sense of the word is the Eucharist. For this cannot be
denied that the faithful of the first ages of the Church looked upon the
Eucharist as the complement of Christian perfection, and as the last seal of
hope and salvation. It was for tiffs reason that at the beginning of life, after
baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist was given even to infants, and at
the close of life the Eucharist followed reconciliation and extreme unction,

117

so that properly and literally it could be styled "the last Viaticum."
Moreover for penitents it was considered especially necessary that
through it they might return to the peace of the Church; for perfect peace
is given by that very communion of the Eucharist. [A number of instances
are then cited, and various ancient versions of the canon.] Balsamon and
Zonaras also understand the canon as I have done, as is evident from their
commentaries, and so did Josephus Aegyptius, who in his Arabic
Paraphrase gives the canon this title: "Concerning him who is
excommunicated and has committed some deadly sin, and desires the
Eucharist to be granted to him."

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian, Decretum Pars.
II. causa xxvi, Quaes. VI, c. ix.

118
EXCURSUS ON THE COMMUNION OF THE SICK

There is nothing upon which the ancient church more strenuously insisted
than the oral reception of the Holy Communion. What in later times was
known as "Spiritual Communion" was outside of the view of those early
days; and to them the issues of eternity were considered often to rest
upon the sick man's receiving with his mouth "his food for the journey,"
the Viaticum, before he died. No greater proof of how important this
matter was deemed could be found than the present canon, which provides
that even the stern and invariable canons of the public penance are to give
way before the awful necessity of fortifying the soul in the last hour of its
earthly sojourn.

Possibly at first the Italy Sacrament may have been consecrated in the
presence of the sick person, but of this in early times the instances are rare
and by was considered a marked favor that such a thing should be allowed,
and the saying of mass in private houses was prohibited (as it is in the
Eastern and Latin churches still today) with the greatest rigor.

The necessity of having the consecrated bread and wine for the sick led to
their reservation, a practice which has existed in the Church from the very
beginning, so far as any records of which we are in possession shew.

St. Justin Martyr, writing less than a half century after St. John's death,
mentions that "the deacons communicate each of those present, and carry
away to the absent the blest bread, and wine and water." It was evidently
a long established custom in his day.

Tertullian tells us of a woman whose husband was a heathen and who was
allowed to keep the Holy Sacrament in her house that she might receive
every morning before other food. St. Cyprian also gives a most interesting
example of reservation. In his treatise "On the Lapsed" written in A.D.
251, (chapter xxvi), he says: "Another woman, when she tried with
unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the Holy of the Lord, was
deterred from daring to touch it by fire rising from it."

It is impossible with any accuracy to fix the date, but certainly before the
year four hundred, a perpetual reservation for the sick was made in the
churches. A most interesting incidental proof of this is found in the

119

thrilling description given by St. Chrysostom of the great riot in
Constantinople in the year 403, when the soldiers "burst into the place
where the Holy Things were stored, and saw all things therein," and "the
most holy blood of Christ was spilled upon their clothes." From this
incident it is evident that in that church the Holy Sacrament was reserved
in both kinds, and separately.

Whether this at the time was usual it is hard to say, but there can be no
doubt that even in the earliest times the Sacrament was given, on rare
occasions at least, in one kind, sometimes under the form of bread alone,
and when the sick persons could not swallow under the form of wine
alone. The practice called "intinction," that is the dipping of the bread into
the wine and administering the two species together, was of very early
introduction and still is universal in the East, not only when Communion
is given with the reserved Sacrament, but also when the people are
communicated in the Liturgy from the newly consecrated species. The
first mention of intinction in the West, is at Carthage in the fifth century.
We know it was practiced in the seventh century and by the twelfth it had
become general, to give place to the withdrawal of the chalice altogether in
the West. "Regino (De Eccles. Discip. Lib. I. c. lxx.) in 906, Burchard
(Deer. Lib. V. cap. ix. fol. 95. colon. 1560.) in 996, and Ivo (Deer. Pars. II.
cap. 19:p. 56, Paris 1647) in 1092 all cite a Canon, which they ascribe to a
council of Tours ordering 'every presbyter to have a pyx or vessel meet
for so great a sacrament, in which the Body of the Lord may be carefully
laid up for the Viaticum to those departing from this world, which sacred
oblation ought to be steeped in the Blood of Christ that the presbyter may
be able to say truthfully to the sick man, The Body and Blood of the Lord
avail thee, etc.'"

The reservation of the Holy Sacrament was usually made in the church
itself, and the learned W. E. Scudamore is of opinion that this was the case
in Africa as early as the fourth century.

It will not be uninteresting to quote in this connection the "Apostolic
Constitutions," for while indeed there is much doubt of the date of the
Eighth Book, yet it is certainly of great antiquity. Here we read, "and after
the communion of both men and women, the deacons take what remains
and place it in the tabernacle."

120

Perhaps it may not be amiss before closing the remark that so far as we are
aware the reservation of the Holy Sacrament in the early church was only
for the purposes of communion, and that the churches of the East reserve
it to the present day only for this purpose.

Those who wish to read the matter treated of more at length, can do so in
Muratorius's learned "Dissertations" which are prefixed to his edition of
the Roman Sacramentaries (chapter XXIV) and in Scudamore's Notitia
Eucharistica, a work which can be absolutely relied upon for the accuracy
of its facts, however little one may feel constrained to accept the logical
justness of its conclusions.

121

CANON xrv

Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has
decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall
pray with the catechumens.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

If any of the catechumens shall have fallen for three years he shall be a
hearer only, and then let him pray with the catechumens.

JUSTELLUS

The people formerly were divided into three classes in the church, for
there were catechumens, faithful, and penitents; but it is clear from the
present canon there were two kinds of catechumens: one consisting of
those who heard the Word of God, and wished to become Christians, but
had not yet desired baptism; these were called "hearers." Others who were
of long standing, and were properly trained in the faith, and desired
baptism — these were called "competentes."

There is difference of opinion among the learned as to whether there was
not a third or even a fourth class of catechumens. Bingham and Card.
Bona, while not agreeing in particular points, agree in affirming that there
were more than two classes. Bingham's first class are those not allowed to
enter the church, the e^coGoupevoi, but the affirmation of the existence of
such a class rests only on a very forced explanation of canon five of
Neocaesarea. The second class, the hearers, audientes, rests on better
evidence. These were not allowed to stay while the Holy Mysteries were
celebrated, and their expulsion gave rise to the distinction between the

122

"Mass of the Catechumens" (Missa Catechumenorum) and the "Mass of
the Faithful" {Missa Fidelium). Nor were they suffered to hear the Creed
or the Our Father. Writers who multiply the classes insert here some who
knelt and prayed, called Prostrati or Genuflectentes (the same name as was
given to one of the grades of penitence). (Edw. H. Plumptre in Diet.
Christ. Antiq. s. v. Catechumens.)

After these stages had been traversed each with its appropriate
instruction, the catechumens gave in their names as applicants for baptism,
and were known accordingly as Competentes (ovvanovvTeq). This was
done commonly at the beginning of the Quadragesimal fast, and the
instruction, carried on through the whole of that period, was fuller and
more public in its nature (Cyril Hieros. Catech. 1:5; Hieron. Ep. 61, ad
Pammach. c. 4:). To catechumens in this stage the great articles of the
Creed, the nature of the Sacraments, the penitential discipline of the
Church, were explained, as in the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of
Jerusalem, with dogmatic precision. Special examinations and inquiries into
character were made at intervals during the forty days. It was a time for
fasting and watching and prayer (Constt. Apost. 8:5; 4 C. Carth. c. 85;
Tertull. De Bapt. c. 20; Cyril. 1. c.) and, in the case of those who were
married, of the strictest continence (August. Defide et oper. 5:8). Those
who passed through the ordeal were known as the perfectiores
(xeXeicoxepoi) the electi, or in the nomenclature of the Eastern Church as
pocTtxi^ojxevoi or (pcoTi£6|j,evoi, the present participle being used of
course with a future or gerundial sense. Their names were inscribed as such
in the album or register of the church. They were taught, but not till a few
days before their baptism, the Creed and the Lord's Prayer which they
were to use after it. The periods for this registration varied, naturally
enough, in different churches. At Jerusalem it was done on the second
(Cyril. Catech. iii.), in Africa on the fourth Sunday in Lent (August. Serm.
213), and this was the time at which the candidate, if so disposed, might
lay aside his old heathen or Jewish name and take one more specifically
Christian (Socrat. H. E. 7:21). ...It is only necessary to notice here that the
Sacramentum Catechumenorum of which Augustine speaks (De Peccat.
Merit. 2:26) as given apparently at or about the time of their first
admission by imposition of hands, was probably the evXoyiai oxpanis

123

benedictus, and not, as Bingham and Augusta maintain, the salt which was
given with milk and honey after baptism.

124

CANON XV

On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed
that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must
wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall
pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and
great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course,
his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the
Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. But they
shall be sent back, should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which
they were ordained.

HEFELE

The translation of a bishop, priest, or deacon from one church to another,
had already been forbidden in the primitive Church. Nevertheless, several
translations had taken place, and even at the Council of Nice several
eminent men were present who had left their first bishoprics to take
others: thus Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, had been before Bishop of
Berytus; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, had been before Bishop of
Berrhoea in Syria. The Council of Nice thought it necessary to forbid in
future these translations, and to declare them invalid. The chief reason of
this prohibition was found in the irregularities and disputes occasioned by
such change of sees; but even if such practical difficulties had not arisen,

125

the whole doctrinal idea, so to speak, of the relationship between a cleric
and the church to which he had been ordained, namely, the contracting of a
mystical marriage between them, would be opposed to any translation or
change. In 341 the Synod of Antioch renewed, in its twenty-first canon,
the prohibition passed by the Council of Nice; but the interest of the
Church often rendered it necessary to make exceptions, as happened in the
case of St. Chrysostom. These exceptional cases increased almost
immediately after the holding of the Council of Nice, so that in 382, St.
Gregory of Nazianzum considered this law among those which had long
been abrogated by custom. It was more strictly observed in the Latin
Church; and even Gregory's contemporary, Pope Damasus, declared
himself decidedly in favor of the rule of Nice.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars II.
Causa VII, Q. 1, c. xix.

126
EXCURSUS ON THE TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS

There are few points upon which the discipline of the Church has so
completely changed as that which regulated, or rather which forbade, the
translation of a bishop from the see for which he was consecrated to some
other diocese. The grounds on which such prohibition rested were usually
that such changes were the outcome of ambition, and that if tolerated the
result would be that smaller and less important sees would be despised,
and that there would be a constant temptation to the bishops of such sees
to make themselves popular with the important persons in other dioceses
with the hope of promotion. Besides this objection to translation, St.
Athanasius mentions a spiritual one, that the diocese was the bishop's
bride, and that to desert it and take another was an act of unjustifiable
divorce, and subsequent adultery. Canon XIV. of the Apostolic Canons
does not forbid the practice absolutely, but allows it for just cause, and
although the Council of Nice is more stringent so far as its words are
concerned, apparently forbidding translation under any circumstances, yet,
as a matter of fact, that very council did allow and approve a translation.
The general feeling, however, of the early Church was certainly very
strong against all such changes of Episcopal cure, and there can be no
doubt that the chief reason why St. Gregory Nazianzen resigned the
Presidency of the First Council of Constantinople, was because he had
been translated from his obscure see Sasima (not Nazianzum as Socrates
and Jerome say) to the Imperial City.

From the canons of some provincial councils, and especially from those of
the Third and of the Fourth Council of Carthage, it is evident that despite
the conciliar and papal prohibitions, translations did take place, being
made by the authority of the provincial Synods, and without the consent
of the pope, but it is also evident that this authority was too weak, and
that the aid of the secular power had often to be invoked.

This course, of having the matter decided by the synod, was exactly in
accordance with the Apostolic Canon (no. xiv.). In this manner, for
example, Alexander was translated from Cappadocia to Jerusalem, a
translation made, so it is narrated, in obedience to heavenly revelation.

127

It will be noticed that the Nicene Canon does not forbid Provincial
Councils to translate bishops, but forbids bishops to translate themselves,
and the author of the tract De Translationibus in the Jus Orient, (i. 293,
Cit. Haddon. Art. "Bishop," Smith and Cheetham, Diet. Chr. Antiq.) sums
up the matter tersely in the statement that f| peTdpocoK; KeKco^/uxoci, ox>
ut|v r\ \iexdQeaiq: i.e., the thing prohibited is "transmigration" (which
arises from the bishop himself, from selfish motives) not "translation"
(wherein the will of God and the good of the Church is the ruling cause);
the "going," not the "being taken" to another see. And this was the
practice both of East and West, for many centuries. Roman Catholic
writers have tried to prove that translations, at least to the chief sees,
required the papal consent, but Thomassinus, considering the case of St.
Meletius having translated St. Gregory of Nazianzum to Constantinople,
admits that in so doing he "would only have followed the example of
many great bishops of the first ages, when usage had not yet reserved
translations to the first see of the Church."

But the same learned author frankly confesses that in France, Spain, and
England, translations were made until the ninth century without consulting
the pope at all, by bishops and kings. When, however, from grounds of
simple ambition, Anthimus was translated from Trebizonde to
Constantinople, the religious of the city wrote to the pope, as also did the
patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and as a result the Emperor Justinian
allowed Anthimus to be deposed.

Balsamon distinguishes three kinds of translations. The first, when a
bishop of marked learning and of equal piety is forced by a council to pass
from a small diocese to one far greater where he will be able to do the
Church the most important services, as was the case when St. Gregory of
Nazianzum was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople, \xexdQeaiq
the second when a bishop, whose see has been laid low by the barbarians,
is transferred to another see which is vacant, pexdpaai<; and the third
when a bishop, either having or lacking a see, seizes on a bishopric which
is vacant, on his own proper authority ocvocPocgic; it is this last which the
Council of Sardica punishes so severely. In all these remarks of Balsamon
there is no mention of the imperial power.

128

Demetrius Chomatenus, however, who was Archbishop of Thessalonica,
and wrote a series of answers to Cabasilas, Archbishop of Durazzo, says
that by the command of the Emperor a bishop, elected and confirmed, and
even ready to be ordained for a diocese, may be forced to take the charge
of another one which is more important, and where his services will be
incomparably more useful to the public. Thus we read in the Book of
Eastern Law that "If a Metropolitan with his synod, moved by a
praiseworthy cause and probable pretext, shall give his approbation to the
translation of a bishop, this can, without doubt, be done, for the good of
souls and for the better administration of the church's affairs, etc." This
was adopted at a synod held by the patriarch Manuel at Constantinople,
in the presence of the imperial commissioners.

The same thing appears also in the synodal response of the patriarch
Michael, which only demands for translation the authority of the
Metropolitan and "the greatest authority of the Church." But, soon after
this, translation became the rule, and not the exception both in East and
West.

It was in vain that Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the East raised
his voice against the constant translations made by the secular power, and
the Emperors of Constantinople were often absolute masters of the choice
and translations of bishops; and Thomassinus sums up the matter, "At the
least we are forced to the conclusion that no translations could be made
without the consent of the Emperor, especially when it was the See of
Constantinople that was to be filled."

The same learned writer continues: "It was usually the bishop or
archbishop of another church that was chosen to ascend the patriarchal
throne of the imperial city. The Kings of England often used this same
power to appoint to the Primatial See of Canterbury a bishop already
approved in the government of another diocese."

In the West, Cardinal Bellarmine disapproved the prevailing custom of
translations and protested against it to his master, Pope Clement VIII. ,
reminding him that they were contrary to the canons and contrary to the
usage of the Ancient Church, except in cases of necessity and of great gain
to the Church. The pope entirely agreed with these wise observations, and
promised that he would himself make, and would urge princes to make,

129

translations only "with difficulty." But translations are made universally,
all the world over, today, and no attention whatever is paid to the ancient
canons and discipline of the Church.

130

CANON XVI

Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the
clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the
ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought
by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint
should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will
not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare
surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging
to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom
although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination
be void.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church are not to be
admitted into another, but are to be sent back to their own diocese. But if
any bishop should ordain one who belongs to another Church without the
consent of his own bishop, the ordination shall be canceled.

"Parish" in this canon, as so often elsewhere, means "diocese."

BALSAMON

It seemed right that the clergy should have no power to move from city to
city and to change their canonical residence without letters dimissory from
the bishop who ordained them. But such clerics as are called by the
bishops who ordained them and cannot be persuaded to return, are to be
separated from communion, that is to say, not to be allowed to

131

concelebrate (awiepovpyelv) with them, for this is the meaning of
"excommunicated" in this place, and not that they should not enter the
church nor receive the sacraments. This decree agrees with canon 15:of the
Apostolical canons, which provides that such shall not celebrate the
liturgy. Canon xvj. of the same Apostolical canons further provides that if
a bishop receive a cleric coming to him from another diocese without his
bishop's letters dimissory, and shall ordain him, such a bishop shall be
separated. From all this it is evident that the Chartophylax of the Great
Church for the time does rightly in refusing to allow priests ordained in
other dioceses to offer the sacrifice unless they bring with them letters
commendatory and dimissory from those who ordained them.

Zonaras had also in his Scholion given the same explanation of the canon.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, divided into two.
Decretum. Pars II, Causa VII. Quaest. I. c. xxiij.; and Pars I. Dist. LXXL,
c.iij. CANON XVII.

132

CANON XVII

Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness
and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, "He hath
not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth
of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just
that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he
accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the
whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy
lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken
from the list.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

If anyone shall receive usury or 150 per cent, he shall be cast forth and
deposed, according to this decree of the Church.

VAN ESPEN

Although the canon expresses only these two species of usury, if we bear
in mind the grounds on which the prohibition was made, it will be manifest
that every kind of usury is forbidden to clerics and under any
circumstances, and therefore the translation of this canon sent by the
Orientals to the Sixth Council of Carthage is in no respect alien to the true
intent of the canon; for in this version no mention is made of any
particular kind of usury, but generally the penalty is assigned to any
clerics who "shall be found after this decree taking usury" or thinking out
any other scheme for the sake of filthy lucre.

133

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, in the first part of the
Decretum, in Dionysius's version. Dist. xlvii, c. ii, and again in Isidore's
version in Pars II, Causa 14:Quaes. iv., c. viii.

134

EXCURSUS ON USURY

The famous canonist Van Espen defines usury thus: "Usura definitur
lucrum ex mutuo exactum aut speratum;" and then goes on to defend the
proposition that, "Usury is forbidden by natural, by divine, and by human
law. The first is proved thus. Natural law, as far as its first principles are
concerned, is contained in the decalogue; but usury is prohibited in the
decalogue, inasmuch as theft is prohibited; and this is the opinion of the
Master of the Sentences, of St. Bonaventura, of St. Thomas and of a host
of others: for by the name of theft in the Law all unlawful taking of
another's goods is prohibited; but usury is an unlawful, etc." For a proof
of usury's being contrary to divine law he cites Exodus 22:25, and
Dueteronomy 23:29; and from the New Testament Luke 6:34. "The third
assertion is proved thus. Usury is forbidden by human law: The First
Council of Nice in Canon VII. deposed from the clergy and from all
ecclesiastical rank, clerics who took usury; and the same thing is the case
with an infinite number of councils, in fact with nearly all e.g. Elvira, ij,
Aries j, Carthage iij, Tours iij, etc. Nay, even the pagans themselves
formerly forbid it by their laws." He then quotes Tacitus (Annal. lib. v.),
and adds, "with what severe laws the French Kings coerced usurers is
evident from the edicts of St. Louis, Philip IV., Charles IX., Henry III.,
etc."

There can be no doubt that Van Espen in the foregoing has accurately
represented and without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all
teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the
Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest exacted
upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its reception was
esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who wish to read the
history of the matter in all its details are referred to Bossuet's work on the
subject Traite de I'Usure, where they will find the old, traditional view of
the Christian religion defended by one thoroughly acquainted with all that
could be said on the other side.

The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which that
which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured into
innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the modern
distinction between "interest" and "usury," and was the first to write in

135

defense of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry. Luther violently
opposed him, and Melancthon also kept to the old doctrine, though less
violently (as was to be expected); today the whole Christian West,
Protestant and Catholic alike, stake their salvation upon the truth of
Calvin's distinction! Among Roman Catholics the new doctrine began to
be defended about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the work of
Scipio Maffei, Dell' impiego dell danaro, written on the laxer side, having
attracted a widespread attention. The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope
Benedict XIV. allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to
him, and in 1830 the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of
the reigning Pontiff, Plus VIII. , decided that those who considered the
taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were "not to be
disturbed." It is entirely disingenuous to attempt to reconcile the modern
with the ancient doctrine; the Fathers expressly deny that the State has
any power to make the receiving of interest just or to fix its rate, there is
but one ground for those to take who accept the new teaching, viz. that all
the ancients, while true on the moral principle that one must not defraud
his neighbor nor take unjust advantage of his necessity, were in error
concerning the facts, in that they supposed that money was barren, an
opinion which the Schoolmen also held, following Aristotle. This we have
found in modern times, and amid modern circumstances, to be an entire
error, as Gury, the famous modern casuist, well says, "fructum producit et
multiplicatur per se."

That the student may have it in his power to read the Patristic view of the
matter, I give a list of the passages most commonly cited, together with a
review of the conciliar action, for all which I am indebted to a masterly
article by Wharton B. Marriott in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of
Christian Antiquities (s. v. Usury).

Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and the
West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two churches
are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of the practice of
usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we find Athanasius
(Expos, in Psalm xiv); Basil the Great (Horn, in Psalm xiv). Gregory of
Nazianzum (Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cont.
Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. iv. c. 37), Epiphanius (adv.
Haeres. Epilog, c. 24), Chrysostom (Horn. xli. in Genes), and Theodoret

136

(Interpr. in Psalm 14:5, and 54:11). Among those belonging to the Latin
church, Hilary of Poitiers (in Psalm xiv); Ambrose (de Tobia liber unus).
Jerome (in Ezech. 6:18); Augustine de Baptismo contr. Donatistas, 4:19);
Leo the Great (Epist. 3:4), and Cassiodorus (in Psalm 14:10).

The canons of later councils differ materially in relation to this subject, and
indicate a distinct tendency to mitigate the rigor of the Nicaean interdict.
That of the council of Carthage of the year 348 enforces the original
prohibition, but without the penalty, and grounds the veto on both Old
and New Testament authority, "nemo contra prophetas, nemo contra
evangelia facit sine periculo" (Mansi, 3:158). The language, however, when
compared with that of the council of Carthage of the year 419, serves to
suggest that, in the interval, the lower clergy had occasionally been found
having recourse to the forbidden practice, for the general terms of the
earlier canon, "ut non liceat clericis fenerari," are enforced with greater
particularity in the latter, "Nee omnino cuiquam clericorum liceat de
qualibetre foenus accipere" (Mansi, 4:423). This supposition is
supported by the language of the council of Orleans (A.D. 538), which
appears to imply that deacons were not prohibited from lending money at
interest, "Et clericus a diaconatu, et supra, pecuniam non commodet ad
usuras" (ib. 9:18). Similarly, at the second council of Trullanum (A.D.
692) a like liberty would appear to have been recognized among the lower
clergy (Hardouin, 3: 1663). While, again, the Nicaean canon requires the
immediate deposition of the ecclesiastic found guilty of the practice, the
Apostolical canon enjoins that such deposition is to take place only after
he has been admonished and has disregarded the admonition.

Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that the Church
imposed no penalty on the layman. St. Basil (Epist. clxxxviii. can. 12),
says that a usurer may even be admitted to orders, provided he gives his
acquired wealth to the poor and abstains for the future from the pursuit of
gain (Migne, Patrol. Groec. 32:275). Gregory of Nyssa says that usury,
unlike theft, the desecration of tombs, and sacrilege (lepocuA/ioc) is
allowed to pass unpunished, although among the things forbidden by
Scripture, nor is a candidate at ordination ever asked whether or no he has
been guilty of the practice (Migne, ib. 45:233). A letter of Sidonius
Apollinaris (Epist. 6:24) relating an experience of his friend Maximus,
appears to imply that no blame attached to lending money at the legal rate

137

of interest, and that even a bishop might be a creditor on those terms. We
find also Desiderates, bishop of Verdun, when applying for a loan to king
Theodebert, for the relief of his impoverished diocese, promising
repayment, "cure usuris legitimis," an expression which would seem to
imply that in the Gallican church usury was recognized as lawful under
certain conditions (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. 3:34). So again a letter (Epist.
9:38) of Gregory the Great seems to shew that he did not regard the
payment of interest for money advanced by one layman to another as
unlawful. But on the other hand, we find in what is known as archbishop
Theodore's "Penitential" (circ. A.D. 690) what appears to be a general law
on the subject, enjoining "Sie quis usuras undecunque exegerit... tres annos
in pane et aqua" (c. 25:3); a penance again enjoined in the Penitential of
Egbert of York (c. 2:30). In like manner, the legates, George and
Theophylact, in reporting their proceedings in England to pope Adrian I.
(A.D. 787), state that they have prohibited "usurers," and cite the
authority of the Psalmist and St. Augustine (Haddan and Stubbs, Cone.
3:457). The councils of Mayence, Rheims, and Chalons, in the year 813,
and that of Aix in the year 816, seem to have laid down the same
prohibition as binding both on the clergy and the laity (Hardouin, Cone.
4:1011,1020,1033,1100).

Muratori, in his dissertation on the subject (Antichita, vol. L), observes
that "we do not know exactly how commerce was transacted in the five
preceding centuries," and consequently are ignorant as to the terms on
which loans of money were effected.

138

CANON xvm

It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some
districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters,
whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to
offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also
has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even
before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the
deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the
ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them
receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let
either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not
the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and
order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be
deposed from the diaconate.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

Deacons must abide within their own bounds. They shall not administer the
Eucharist to presbyters, nor touch it before them, nor sit among the
presbyters. For all this is contrary to canon, and to decent order.

VAN ESPEN

Four excesses of deacons this canon condemns, at least indirectly. The
first was that they gave the holy Communion to presbyters. To
understand more easily the meaning of the canon it must be remembered
that the reference here is not to the presbyters who were sacrificing at the
altar but to those who were offering together with the bishop who was

139

sacrificing; by a rite not unlike that which today takes place, when the
newly ordained presbyters or bishops celebrate mass with the ordaining
bishop; and this rite in old times was of daily occurrence, for a full account
of which see Morinus De SS. Ordinal. P. III. Exercit. viij.... The present
canon does not take away from deacons the authority to distribute the
Eucharist to laymen, or to the minor clergy, but only reproves their
insolence and audacity in presuming to administer to presbyters who were
concelebrating with the bishop or another presbyter.

The second abuse was that certain deacons touched the sacred gifts before
the bishop. The vulgar version of Isidore reads for "touched" "received," a
meaning which Balsamon and Zonaras also adopt, and unless the Greek
word, which signifies "to touch," is contrary to this translation, it seems
by no means to be alien to the context of the canon.

"Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the
presbyters, and let the bishop or the presbyter administer to them." In
these words it is implied that some deacons had presumed to receive Holy
Communion before the presbyters, and this is the third excess of the
deacon which is condemned by the Synod.

And lastly, the fourth excess was that they took a place among the
presbyters at the very time of the sacrifice, or "at the holy altar," as
Balsamon observes.

From this canon we see that the Nicene, fathers entertained no doubt that
the faithful in the holy Communion truly received "the body of Christ."
Secondly, that that was "offered" in the church, which is the word by
which sacrifice is designated in the New Testament, and therefore it was at
that time a fixed tradition that there was a sacrifice in which the body of
Christ was offered. Thirdly that not to all, nor even to deacons, but only
to bishops and presbyters was given the power of offering. And lastly,
that there was recognized a fixed hierarchy in the Church, made up of
bishops and presbyters and deacons in subordination to these.

Of course even at that early date there was nothing new in this doctrine of
the Eucharist. St. Ignatius more than a century and a half before, wrote as
follows: "But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace
of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind

140

of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the
orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry
or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because
they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,
which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness
raised up."

In one point the learned scholiast just quoted has most seriously
understated his case. He says that the wording of the canon shews "that
the Nicene fathers entertained no doubt that the faithful in the holy
Communion truly received 'the body of Christ.'" Now this statement is of
course true because it is included in what the canon says, but the doctrinal
statement which is necessarily contained in the canon is that "the body of
Christ is given" by the minister to the faithful. This doctrine is believed by
all Catholics and by Lutherans, but is denied by all other Protestants;
those Calvinists who kept most nearly to the ordinary Catholic
phraseology only admitting that "the sacrament of the Body of Christ"
was given in the supper by the minister, while "the body of Christ," they
taught, was present only in the soul of the worthy communicant (and in
no way connected with the form of bread, which was but the divinely
appointed sign and assurance of the heavenly gift), and therefore could not
be "given" by the priest.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum. Pars I. Dist.
XCIIL, c. xiv.

141

CANON XIX

Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic
Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and
if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy
should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized
and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination
should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in
the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have
been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we
mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they
have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

Paulianists must be rebaptized, and if such as are clergymen seem to be
blameless let then, be ordained. If they do not seem to be blameless, let
them be deposed. Deaconesses who have been led astray, since they are
not sharers of ordination, are to be reckoned among the laity.

FFOULKES.

{Diet. Chr. Ant. s.v. Nicaea, Councils of.)

That this is the true meaning of the phrase opoc;, eicceGeiTcu, viz. "a
decree has now been made," is clear from the application of the words
opoc; in Canon xvii., and (opiaev in Canon 6:It has been a pure mistake,
therefore, which Bp. Hefele blindly follows, to understand it of some
canon previously passed, whether at Aries or elsewhere.

142

JUSTELLUS.

Here xeipoGeaioc is taken for ordination or consecration, not for
benediction,... for neither were deaconesses, sub-deacons, readers, and
other ministers ordained, but a blessing was merely pronounced over them
by prayer and imposition of hands.

ARISTENUS.

Their (the Paulicians') deaconesses also, since they have no imposition of
hands, if they come over to the Catholic Church and are baptized, are
ranked among the laity.

With this Zonaras and Balsamon also agree.

HEFELE

By Paulianists must be understood the followers of Paul of Samosata the
anti-Trinitarian who, about the year 260, had been made bishop of
Antioch, but had been deposed by a great Synod in 269. As Paul of
Samosata was heretical in his teaching on the Holy Trinity the Synod of
Nice applied to him the decree passed by the council of Aries in its eighth
canon. "If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask
him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he shall have a hand laid on
him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their
questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized."

The Samosatans, according to St. Athanasius, named the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit in administering baptism {Oral, ii, Contra Arian. No. xliii), but
as they gave a false meaning to the baptismal formula and did not use the
words Son and Holy Spirit in the usual sense, the Council of Nice, like St.
Athanasius himself, considered their baptism as invalid.

143

There is great difficulty about the text of the clause beginning "Likewise in
the case, etc.," and Gelasius, the Prisca, Theilo and Thearistus, (who in
419 translated the canons of Nice for the African bishops), the
Pseudolsidore, and Gratian have all followed a reading Siockovcov instead
of SiocKoviaocov. This change makes all clear, but many canonists keep
the ordinary text, including Van Espen, with whose interpretation Hefele
does not agree.

The clause I have rendered "And we mean by deaconesses" is most
difficult of translation. I give the original, E(xvr|a9r|(xev 8e Siockovigcnbv
t(3v ev T(5 o%r\\ia,Ti e^exaaGeiacov kne\ k.t.X. Hefele' s translation
seems to me impossible, by a%r\\iaxi he understands the list of the clergy
just mentioned.

144

EXCURSUS ON THE DEACONESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

It has been supposed by many that the deaconess of the Early Church had
an Apostolic institution and that its existence may be referred to by St.
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (16:1) where he speaks of Phoebe as
being a Siockovoc; of the Church of Cenchrea. It moreover has been
suggested that the "widows" of 1 Timothy 5:9 may have been
deaconesses, and this seems not unlikely from the fact that the age for the
admission of women to this ministry was fixed by Tertullian at sixty years
(De Vel. Virg. Cap. ix.), and only changed to forty, two centuries later by
the Council of Chalcedon, and from the further fact that these "widows"
spoken of by St. Paul seem to have had a vow of chastity, for it is
expressly said that if they marry they have "damnation, because they have
cast off their first faith" (1 Timothy 5:12).

These women were called Siockovictctou, TtpeafhmSec; (which must be
distinguished from thenpeo^vxkpai, a poor class referred to in the
Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 28) who are to be only invited frequently to
the love-feasts, while the 7tpea(3t)Ti8ea had a definite allotment of the
offerings assigned to their support), %f|pou, diaconissoe, presbyteroe, and
viduce.

The one great characteristic of the deaconess was that she was vowed to
perpetual chastity. The Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 17) say that she
must be a chaste virgin (rcocpGevoc; 6cyvr|) or else a widow. The writer of
the article "Deaconess" in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities says: "It
is evident that the ordination of deaconesses included a vow of celibacy."
We have already seen the language used by St. Paul and of this the wording
of the canon of Chalcedon is but an echo (Canon xv). "A woman shall not
receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and
then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid
on her, and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the
Grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and
the man who is united to her." The civil law went still further, and by
Justinian's Sixth Novel those who attempted to marry are subjected to
forfeiture of property and capital punishment. In the collect in the ancient

145

office there is a special petition that the newly admitted deaconess may
have the gift of continence.

The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates
for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism was always
administered by immersion (except to those in extreme illness) and hence
there was much that such an order of women could be useful in. Moreover
they sometimes gave to the female catechumens preliminary instruction,
but their work was wholly limited to women, and for a deaconess of the
Early Church to teach a man or to nurse him in sickness would have been
an impossibility. The duties of the deaconess are set forth in many ancient
writings, I cite here what is commonly known as the XII Canon of the
Fourth Council of Carthage, which met in the year 398:

"Widows and dedicated women (sanctimoniales) who are chosen to assist
at the baptism of women, should be so well instructed in their office as to
be able to teach aptly and properly unskilled and rustic women how to
answer at the time of their baptism to the questions put to them, and also
how to live godly after they have been baptized." This whole matter is
treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while indeed speaking of
deaconesses as an order (xdypa) asserts that "they were only women-
elders, not priestesses in any sense, that their mission was not to interfere
in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform certain
offices in the care of women" (Hoer. lxxix, cap. iii). From all this it is
evident that they are entirely in error who suppose that "the laying on of
hands" which the deaconesses received corresponded to that by which
persons were ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate at
that period of the church's history. It was merely a solemn dedication and
blessing and was not looked upon as "an outward sign of an inward grace
given." For further proof of this I must refer to Morinus, who has treated
the matter most admirably. (De Ordinationibus, Exercitatio X.)

The deaconesses existed but a short while. The council of Laodicea as early
as A.D. 343-381, forbade the appointment of any who were called
7tpeaPiJTi8e<; {Vide Canon xi); and the first council of Orange, A.D. 441,
in its twenty-sixth canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses
altogether, and the Second council of the same city in canons xvii and xviii,
decrees that deaconesses who married were to be excommunicated unless

146

they renounced the men they were living with, and that, on account of the
weakness of the sex, none for the future were to be ordained.

Thomassinus, to whom I refer the reader for a very full treatment of the
whole subject, is of opinion that the order was extinct in the West by the
tenth or twelfth century, but that it lingered on a little later at
Constantinople but only in conventual institutions. (Thomassin, Ancienne
et Nouvelle Discipline de I' Eglise, I Partie, Livre III.)

CANON XX

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and
in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be
uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the
holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.

HAMMOND.

Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive
Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of
standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between
Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona
Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other observances
which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally

147

practiced upon the authority of tradition. "We consider it unlawful," he
says, "to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day; we enjoy the
same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4.
Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which,
as given by Augustine; and others, was to commemorate the resurrection
of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which
that of our Lord assured. This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of
the importance formerly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites
throughout the Church, which made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and
enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is indifferent, and not
commanded directly or indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their
reason for doing so: "In order that all things may be observed in like
manner in every parish" or diocese.

HEFELE

All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice; for we see in the
Acts of the Apostles (xx. 36 and 21:5) that St. Paul prayed kneeling during
the time between Pentecost and Easter.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars III, De
Cone. Dist. III. c. x.

148
EXCURSUS ON THE NUMBER OF THE NICENE CANONS.

There has come down to us a Latin letter purporting to have been written
by St. Athanasius to Pope Marcus. This letter is found in the Benedictine
edition of St. Athanasius' s works (ed. Patav. 2:599) but rejected as
spurious by Montfaucon the learned editor. In this letter is contained the
marvelous assertion that the Council of Nice at first adopted forty canons,
which were in Greek, that it subsequently added twenty Latin canons, and
that afterwards the council reassembled and set forth seventy altogether. A
tradition that something of the kind had taken place was prevalent in parts
of the East, and some collections did contain seventy canons.

In the Vatican Library is a MS. which was bought for it by the famous
Asseman, from the Coptic Patriarch, John, and which contains not only
seventy, but eighty canons attributed to the council of Nice. The MS. is in
Arabic, and was discovered by J. B. Romanus, S. J., who first made its
contents known, and translated into Latin a copy he had made of it.
Another Jesuit, Pisanus, was writing a history of the Nicene Council at the
time and he received the eighty newly found canons into his book; but, out
of respect to the pseudo-Athanasian letter, he at first cut down the
number to seventy; but in later editions he followed the MS. All this was
in the latter half of the sixteenth century; and in 1578 Turrianus, who had
had Father Romanus' s translation revised before it was first published,
now issued an entirely new translation with a Proemium containing a vast
amount of information upon the whole subject, and setting up an
attempted proof that the number of the Nicene Canons exceeded twenty.
His argument for the time being carried the day.

Hefele says, "it is certain that the Orientals believed the Council of Nice to
have promulgated more than twenty canons: the learned Anglican,
Beveridge, has proved this, reproducing an ancient Arabic paraphrase of
the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic
paraphrase, found in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, the Council of Nice
must have put forth three books of canons.... The Arabic paraphrase of
which we are speaking gives a paraphrase of all these canons, but
Beveridge took only the part referring to the second book — that is to say,

149

the paraphrase of the twenty genuine canons; for, according to his view,
which was perfectly correct, it was only these twenty canons which were
really the work of the Council of Nice, and all the others were falsely
attributed to it."

Hefele goes on to prove that the canons he rejects must be of much later
origin, some being laws of the times of Theodosius and Justinian according
to the opinion of Renaudot.

Before leaving this point I should notice the profound research on these
Arabic canons of the Maronite, Abraham Echellensis. He gives eighty-four
canons in his Latin translation of 1645, and was of opinion that they had
been collected from different Oriental sources, and sects; but that
originally they had all been translated from the Greek, and were collected
by James, the celebrated bishop of Nisibis, who was present at Nice. But
this last supposition is utterly untenable.

Among the learned there have not been wanting some who have held that
the Council of Nice passed more canons than the twenty we possess, and
have arrived at the conclusion independently of the Arabic discovery, such
are Baronius and Card. d'Aguirre, but their arguments have been
sufficiently answered, and they cannot present anything able to weaken
the conclusion that flows from the consideration of the following facts.

(Hefele: History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 355 et seqq. [2ded.])

Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and Latin authors
who lived about the time of the Council, concerning the number.

a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is the learned
Theodoret, who lived about a century after the Council of Nicaea. He
says, in his History of the Church: "After the condemnation of the Arians,
the bishops assembled once more, and decreed twenty canons on
ecclesiastical discipline."

b. Twenty years later, Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much research
into the most ancient documents, wrote a history of the Nicene Council.
Gelasius also says expressly that the Council decreed twenty canons; and,
what is more important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly
in the same order, and according to the tenor which we find elsewhere.

150

c. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He was born near the
period when the Council of Nicaea was held, and about half a century after
he wrote his celebrated history of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin
translation of the Nicene canons. Rufinus also knew only of these twenty
canons; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into two parts, he
has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly the same as the twenty
furnished by the other historians.

d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and the Bishop of
Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives us a very important
testimony on the true number of the Nicene canons. The presbyter
Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed for many crimes,
appealed to Rome. Pope Zosimus (417-418) took the appeal into
consideration, sent legates to Africa; and to prove that he had the right to
act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nicaea, containing these
words: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his
colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the
business decided by judices in paribus." The canon quoted by the Pope
does not belong to the Council of Nicaea, as he affirmed; it was the fifth
canon of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version). What
explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient copies the canons of
Nicaea and Sardica are written consecutively, with the same figures, and
under the common title of canons of the Council of Nicaea; and Zosimus
might optima fide fall into an error — which he shared with Greek authors,
his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of Nicaea with those of
Sardica. The African bishops, not finding the canon quoted by the Pope
either in their Greek or in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the
copy which Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council
of Nicaea, had brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared
that they did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send to
Alexandria and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of these two cities
for authentic copies of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. The African
bishops desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same step
(Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418) — that he should ask for
copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch.
Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and
faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nicaea; and two learned men of

151

Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even translated these canons into
Latin. Their translation has been preserved to us in the acts of the sixth
Council of Carthage, and it contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It
might be thought at first sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on
closer consideration we see, as Hardouin has proved, that this twenty-first
article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the Nicene canons
by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in these terms: "After the
bishops had decreed these rules at Nicaea, and after the holy Council had
decided what was the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and
unity of faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is
what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to add according to the
history of the Church." The bishops of Africa despatched to Pope
Boniface the copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria and
Constantinople, in the month of November 419; and subsequently in their
letters to Celestine I. (423-432), successor to Boniface, they appealed to
the text of these documents.

e. All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or Greek, composed
in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in the fifth century, agree in giving
only these twenty canons to Nicaea. The most ancient of these collections
were made in the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great
number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies have
descended to us; many libraries possess copies; thus Montfaucon
enumerates several in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana. Fabricius makes a similar
catalogue of the copies in his Bibliotheca Groeca to those found in the
libraries of Turin, Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds
that these copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those of
the most ancient councils. The French bishop John Tilius presented to
Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the
ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of Nicaea, besides the
so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Ehmger published a
new edition at Wittemberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was found
at Augsburg; but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given in
1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicaea. This text of the
Roman editors, with the exception of some insignificant variations, was
exactly the same as that of the edition of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit
Sirmond nor his coadjutors have mentioned what manuscripts were

152

consulted in preparing this edition; probably they were manuscripts
drawn from several libraries, and particularly from that of the Vatican. The
text of this Roman edition passed into all the following collections, even
into those of Hardouin and Mansi; while Justell in his Bibliotheca juris
Canonici and Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century),
give a somewhat different text, also collated from MSS., and very similar
to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica,
compares the two texts. Now all these Greek MSS, consulted at such
different times, and by all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons
of Nicaea, and always the same twenty which we possess.

The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also give the same
result — for example, the most ancient and the most remarkable of all, the
Prisca, and that of Dionysius the Less, which was collected about the year
500. The testimony of this latter collection is the more important for the
number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Groeca auctoritas.

f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further mention Photius,
Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in his Collection of the Canons, and in his
Nomocanon, as well as the two other writers in their commentaries upon
the canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and know only twenty
canons of Nicaea, and always those which we possess.

g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only these
twenty canons of Nicaea. We have proof of this in the celebrated Spanish
collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St. Isidore (it
was composed at the commencement of the seventh century), and in that
of Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great by Pope
Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the first
canonist of the ninth century, in his turn attributes only twenty canons to
the Council of Nicaea, and even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.

I add for the convenience of the reader the captions of the Eighty Canons
as given by Turrianus, translating them from the reprint in Labbe and
Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II. col. 291. The Eighty-four Canons as given by
Echellensis together with numerous Constitutions and Decrees attributed
to the Nicene Council are likewise to be found in Labbe (ut supra, col.
318).

153

THE CAPTIONS OF THE ARABIC CANONS
ATTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL OF NICE

CANON I.

Insane persons and energumens should not be ordained.

CANON II

Bond servants are not to be ordained.

CANON III

Neophytes in the faith are not to be ordained to Holy Orders before they
have a knowledge of Holy Scripture. And such, if convicted after their
ordination of grave sin, are to be deposed with those who ordained them.

CANON IV

The cohabitation of women with bishops, presbyters, and deacons
prohibited on account of their celibacy.

We decree that bishops shall not live with women; nor shall a presbyter
who is a widower; neither shall they escort them; nor be familiar with
them, nor gaze upon them persistently. And the same decree is made with
regard to every celibate priest, and the same concerning such deacons as
have no wives. And this is to be the case whether the woman be beautiful
or ugly, whether a young girl or beyond the age of puberty, whether great
in birth, or an orphan taken out of charity under pretext of bringing her up.
For the devil with such arms slays religious, bishops, presbyters, and

154

deacons, and incites them to the fires of desire. But if she be an old
woman, and of advanced age, or a sister, or mother, or aunt, or
grandmother, it is permitted to live with these because such persons are
free from all suspicion of scandal.

CANON V

Of the election of a bishop and of the confirmation of the election.

CANON VI

That those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be received by
another; and that those whose excommunication has been shown to have
been unjust should be absolved by the archbishop or patriarch.

CANON VII

That provincial Councils should be held twice a year, for the consideration
of all things affecting the churches of the bishops of the province.

CANON vm

Of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of their jurisdiction.

CANON IX

Of one who solicits the episcopate when the people do not wish him; or if
they do desire him, but without the consent of the archbishop.

155

CANON X

How the bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored, the honor, however, of the
metropolitan church of Caesarea being preserved intact, to which he is
subject.

CANON XI

Of those who force themselves into the order of presbyters without
election or examination.

CANON XII

Of the bishop who ordains one whom he understands has denied the faith;
also of one ordained who after that he had denied it, crept into orders.

CANON xm

Of one who of his own will goes to another church, having been chosen by
it, and does not wish afterwards to stay there.

Of taking pains that he be transferred from his own church to another.

CANON xrv

No one shall become a monk without the bishop's license, and why a
license is required.

156
CANON XV

That clerics or religious who lend on usury should be cast from their grade.

CANON XVI

Of the honor to be paid to the bishop and to a presbyter by the deacons.

CANON XVII

Of the system and of the manner of receiving those who are converted
from the heresy of Paul of Samosata.

CANON xvm.

Of the system and manner of receiving those who are converted from the
heresy the Novatians.

CANON XIX

Of the system and manner of receiving those who return after a lapse from
the faith, and of receiving the relapsed, and of those brought into peril of
death by sickness before their penance is finished, and concerning such as
are convalescent.

CANON XX

Of avoiding the conversation of evil workers and wizards, also of the
penance of them that have not avoided such.

157

CANON XXI

Of incestuous marriages contrary to the law of Spiritual relationship, and
of the penance of such as are in such marriages.

[The time of penance fixed is twenty years, only godfather and godmother
are mentioned, and nothing is said of separation.]

CANON XXII

Of sponsors in baptism.

Men shall not hold females at the font, neither women males; but women
females, and men males.

CANON xxin

Of the prohibited marriages of spiritual brothers and sisters from receiving
them in baptism.

CANON XXIV

Of him who has married two wives at the same time, or who through lust
has added another woman to his wife; and of his punishment.

Part of the canon. If he be a priest he is forbidden to sacrifice and is cut off
from the communion of the faithful until he turn out of the house the
second woman, and he ought to retain the first.

CANON XXV

158

That no one should be forbidden Holy Communion unless such as are
doing penance.

CANON XXVI

Clerics are forbidden from suretyship or witness-giving in criminal causes.

CANON XXVII

Of avoiding the excommunicate, and of not receiving the oblation from
them; and of the excommunication of him who does not avoid the
excommunicated.

CANON xxvm

How anger, indignation, and hatred should be avoided by the priest,
especially because he has the power of excommunicating others.

CANON xxrx

Of not kneeling in prayer.

CANON XXX

Of giving [only] names of Christians in baptism, and of heretics who retain
the faith in the Trinity and the perfect form of baptism; and of others not
retaining it, worthy of a worse name, and of how such are to be received
when they come to the faith.

159

CANON XXXI

Of the system and manner of receiving converts to the Orthodox faith
from the heresy of Arius and of other like.

CANON XXXII

Of the system of receiving those who have kept the dogmas of the faith
and the Church's laws, and yet have separated from us and afterwards
come back.

CANON xxxm

Of the place of residence of the Patriarch, and of the honor which should
be given to the bishop of Jerusalem and to the bishop of Seleucia.

CANON XXXIV

Of the honor to be given to the Archbishop of Seleucia in the Synod of
Greece.

CANON XXXV

Of not holding a provincial synod in the province of Persia without the
authority of the patriarch of Antioch, and how the bishops of Persia are
subject to the metropolitans of Antioch.

160
CANON XXXVI

Of the creation of a patriarch for Ethiopia, and of his power, and of the
honor to be paid him in the Synod of Greece.

CANON xxxvn

Of the election of the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is subject to the
patriarch of Antioch.

canon xxxvm

That the ordination of ministers of the Church by bishops in the dioceses
of strangers is forbidden.

CANON XXXIX.

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome
over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him
fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the
archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of
his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them;
yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who
holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch
as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian
princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our
Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever
shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.

161

[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic.
Canonum Cone. Nicoeni, that the reader may compare it with the
foregoing.]

Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four
writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and
chief over them, the Lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according
as the Apostles commanded. And after him the Lord of the great
Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the Lord of
Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things.
And the fourth and last is my Lord of Antioch, which is another see of
Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four
patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the
dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these
metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the
bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is
greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him
not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law
which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to
anathema.

CANON XL

Of the provincial synod which should be held twice every year, and of its
utility; together with the excommunication of such as oppose the decree.

CANON XLI

Of the synod of Archbishops, which meets once a year with the Patriarch,
and of its utility; also of the collection to be made for the support of the
patriarch throughout the provinces and places subject to the patriarch.

CANON XLII

162

Of a cleric or monk who when fallen into sin, and summoned once, twice,
and thrice, does not present himself for trial.

CANON XLHI

What the patriarch should do in the case of a defendant set at liberty
unpunished by the decision of the bishop, presbyter, or even of a deacon,
as the case may be.

CANON XLIV

How an archbishop ought to give trial to one of his suffragan bishops.

CANON XLV

Of the receiving of complaints and condemnation of an archbishop against
his patriarch.

CANON XL VI

How a patriarch should admit a complaint; or judgment of an Archbishop
against an Archbishop.

CANON XLVII

Of those excommunicated by a certain one, when they can be and when
they cannot be absolved by another.

163

CANON XLVm

No bishop shall choose his own successor.

CANON XLIX

No simoniacal ordinations shall be made.

CANON L

There shall be but one bishop of one city, and one parochus of one town;
also the incumbent, whether bishop or parish priest, shall not be removed
in favor of a successor desired by some of the people unless he has been
convicted of manifest crime.

CANON LI

Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband on
account of discord — [in American, "incompatibility of temper"].

CANON LIL

Usury and the base seeking of worldly gain is forbidden to the clergy, also
conversation and fellowship with Jews.

CANON LIII

Marriages with infidels to be avoided.

164

CANON LIV

Of the election of a chorepiscopus, and of his duties in towns, and villages,
and monasteries.

CANON LV

How a chorepiscopus should visit the churches and monasteries which are
under his jurisdiction.

CANON LVI

Of how the presbyters of the towns and villages should go twice a year
with their chorepiscopus to salute the bishop, and how religious should do
so once a year from their monasteries, and how the new abbot of a
monastery should go thrice.

CANON LVII

Of the rank in sitting during the celebration of service in church by the
bishop, the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus; and of the office of
archdeacon, and of the honor due the archpresbyter.

CANON LVIH

Of the honor flue the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus when they sit in
church during the absence of the bishop, and when they go about with the
bishop.

165

CANON LIX

How all the grades of the clergy and their duties should be publicly
described and set forth.

CANON LX

Of how men are to be chosen from the diocese for holy orders, and of how
they should be examined.

CANON LXI

Of the honor due to the deacons, and how the clerics must not put
themselves in their way.

CANON LXII

The number of presbyters and deacons is to be adapted to the work of the
church and to its means.

CANON LXm

Of the Ecclesiastical Economist and of the others who with him care for
the church's possessions.

166

CANON LXIV

Of the offices said in the church, the night and day offices, and of the
collect for all those who rule that church.

CANON LXV

Of the order to be observed at the funeral of a bishop, of a chorepiscopus
and of an archdeacon, and of the office of exequies.

CANON LXVI

Of taking a second wife, after the former one has been disowned for any
cause, or even not put away, and of him who falsely accuses his wife of
adultery.

If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her
fornication, or for other cause, as aforesaid, or cast her out of doors for
external good, or that he may change her for another more beautiful, or
better, or richer, or does so out of his lust which is displeasing to God; and
after she has been put away for any of these causes he shall contract
matrimony with another, or without having put her away shall take
another, whether free or bond; and shall have both equally, they living
separately and he sleeping every night with one or other of them, or else
keeping both in the same house and bed, let him be deposed. If he were a
layman let him be deprived of communion. But if anyone falsely defames
his wife charging her with adultery, so that he turns her out of doors, the
matter must be diligently examined; and if the accusation was false, he
shall be deposed if a cleric, but if a layman shall be prohibited from
entering the church and from the communion of the faithful; and shall be
compelled to live with her whom he has defamed, even though she be

167

deformed, and poor, and insane; and whoever shall not obey is
excommunicated by the Synod.

[Note. — The reader will notice that by this canon a husband is deposed
or excommunicated, as the case may be, if he marry another woman, after
putting away his wife on account of her adultery. It is curious that in the
parallel canon in the collection of Echellensis, which is numbered LXXL,
the reading is quite different, although it is very awkward and
inconsequent as given. Moreover, it should be remembered that in some
codices and editions this canon is lacking altogether, one on the right of the
Pope to receive appeals taking its place. As this canon is of considerable
length, I only quote the interesting parts.]

Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the offense
of fornication, or for any other cause of which we have spoken above, and
shall east her out of doors... such a person shall be east out of the clergy, if
he were a clergyman; if a layman he shall be forbidden the communion of
the faithful.... But if that woman [untruly charged by her husband with
adultery], that is to say his wife, spurns his society on account of the
injury he has done her and the charge he has brought against her, of which
she is innocent, let her freely be put away and let a bill of repudiation be
written for her, noting the false accusation which had been brought against
her. And then if she should wish to marry some other faithful man, it is
right for he; to do so, nor does the Church forbid it; and the same
permission extends as well to men as to women, since there is equal reason
for it for each. But if he shall return to better fruit which is of the same
kind, and shall conciliate to himself the love and benevolence of his
consort, and shall be willing to return to his pristine friendship, his fault
shall be condoned to him after he has done suitable and sufficient penance.
And whoever shall speak against this decree the fathers of the synod
excommunicate him.

CANON LXVII

168

Of having two wives at the same time, and of a woman who is one of the
faithful marrying an infidel; and of the form of receiving her to penance.
[Her reception back is conditioned upon her leaving the infidel man.]

CANON LXVm

Of giving in marriage to an infidel a daughter or sister without her
knowledge and contrary to her wish.

CANON LXIX

Of one of the faithful who departs from the faith through lust and love of
an infidel; and of the form of receiving him back, or admitting him to
penance.

CANON LXX

Of the hospital to be established in every city, and of the choice of a
superintendent and concerning his duties. [It is interesting to note that one
of the duties of the superintendent is — "That if the goods of the hospital
are not sufficient for its expenses, he ought to collect all the time and from
all Christians provision according to the ability of each."]

CANON LXXI

Of the placing a bishop or archbishop in his chair after ordination, which is
enthronization.

CANON LXXII

169

No one is allowed to transfer himself to another church [i.e., diocese] than
that in which he was ordained; and what is to be done in the case of one
cast out forcibly without any blame attaching to him.

CANON LXXIH

The laity shall not choose for themselves priests in the towns and villages
without the authority of the chorepiscopus; nor an abbot for a monastery;
and that no one should give commands as to who should be elected his
successor after his death, and when this is lawful for a superior.

CANON LXXIV

How sisters, widows, and deaconesses should be made to keep their
residence in their monasteries; and of the system of instructing them; and
of the election of deaconesses, and of their duties and utility.

CANON LXXV

How one seeking election should not be chosen, even if of conspicuous
virtue; and how the election of a layman to the aforesaid grades is not
prohibited, and that those chosen should not afterward be deprived before
their deaths, except on account of crime.

CANON LXXVI

Of the distinctive garb and distinctive names and conversation of monks
and nuns.

170

CANON LXXVII

That a bishop convicted of adultery or of other similar crime should be
deposed without hope of restoration to the same grade; but shall not be
excommunicated.

CANON LXXVIH

Of presbyters and deacons who have fallen only once into adultery, if
they have never been married; and of the same when fallen as widowers,
and those who have fallen, all the while having their own wives. Also of
those who return to the same sin as well widowers as those having living
wives; and which of these ought not to be received to penance, and which
once only, and which twice.

CANON LXXLX

Each one of the faithful while his sin is yet not public should be mended
by private exhortation and admonition; if he will not profit by this, he
must be excommunicated.

CANON LXXX

Of the election of a procurator of the poor, and of his duties.

171

PROPOSED ACTION ON CLERICAL CELIBACY.

[The Acts are not extant.]

NOTES

Often the mind of a deliberative assembly is as clearly shown by the
propositions it rejects as by those it adopts, and it would seem that this
doctrine is of application in the case of the asserted attempt at this
Council to pass a decree forbidding the priesthood to live in the use of
marriage. This attempt is said to have failed. The particulars are as
follows:

HEFELE

(Hist. Councils, Vol. I., pp. 435 et seqq.)

Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm that the Synod of Nicaea, as well
as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to pass a law respecting celibacy. This
law was to forbid all bishops, priests and deacons (Sozomen adds
subdeacons), who were married at the time of their ordination, to continue
to live with their wives. But, say these historians, the law was opposed
openly and decidedly by Paphnutius, bishop of a city of the Upper
Thebais in Egypt, a man of a high reputation, who had lost an eye during
the persecution under Maximian. He was also, celebrated for his miracles,
and was held in so great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often
kissed the empty socket of the lost eye. Paphnutius declared with a loud
voice, "that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that
marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and
undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity,
for all could not live in absolute continency: in this way (by not
prohibiting married intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more
certainly preserved (viz the wife of a clergyman, because she might find

172

injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her married intercourse).
The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste
intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient
tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being
married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen
who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from
their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only a reader or cantor)." This
discourse of Paphnutius made so much the more impression, because he
had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse.
Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up in a monastery, and his great
purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the
Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration,
stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the
responsibility of deciding the point as he would.

If this account be true, we must conclude that a law was proposed to the
Council of Nicaea the same as one which had been carried twenty years
previously at Elvira, in Spain; this coincidence would lead us to believe
that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy
at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to Paphnutius, and the consequent
decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic
Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect
to celibacy. The Greek Church as well as the Latin accepted the principle,
that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be
married afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons, and
even subdeacons, were considered to be subject to this law, because the
latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of
the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek
Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if
previously to it they had expressly obtained from their bishop permission
to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (c. 10). We see that the
Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but in
reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their
ordination. Therefore, whilst the Latin Church exacted of those presenting
themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not
continue to live with their wives if they were married, the Greek Church
gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the

173

Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions
decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of
piety was also forbidden to Greek priests; and the Synod of Gangra (c. 4)
took up the defense of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius,
however, was not alone among the Greeks in opposing the marriage of all
clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin
discipline on this point. St. Epiphanius also inclined towards this side.
The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigor in reference to
priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be required of
bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in
celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Apostolic
Canons (c. 5) and of the Constitutions; for in those documents mention is
made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there
were married bishops, for instance Synesius, in the fifth century. But it is
fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of
his acceptation, on his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to
live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously
require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the
episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek
bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (c.
13.) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of
priests. Baronius, Valesius, and other historians, have considered the
account of the part taken by Paphnutius to be apocryphal. Baronius says,
that as the Council of Nicaea in its third canon gave a law upon celibacy it
is quite impossible to admit that it would alter such a law on account of
Paphnutius. But Baronius is mistaken in seeing a law upon celibacy in that
third canon; he thought it to be so, because, when mentioning the women
who might live in the clergyman's house — his mother, sister, etc. — the
canon does not say a word about the wife. It had no occasion to mention
her, it was referring to the cuveiodcKTOi whilst these GuveiadcKTOi and
married women have nothing in common. Natalis Alexander gives this
anecdote about Paphnutius in full: he desired to refute Ballarmin, who
considered it to be untrue and an invention of Socrates to please the
Novatians. Natalis Alexander often maintains erroneous opinions, and on
the present question he deserves no confidence. If, as St. Epiphanius
relates, the Novatians maintained that the clergy might be married exactly
like the laity, it cannot be said that Socrates shared that opinion, since he

174

says, or rather makes Paphnutius say, that, according to ancient tradition,
those not married at the time of ordination should not be so subsequently.
Moreover, if it may be said that Socrates had a partial sympathy with the
Novatians, he certainly cannot be considered as belonging to them, still
less can he be accused of falsifying history in their favor. He may
sometimes have propounded erroneous opinions, but there is a great
difference between that and the invention of a whole story. Valesius
especially makes use of the argument ex silentio against Socrates, (a)
Rufinus, he says, gives many particulars about Paphnutius in his History
of the Church; he mentions his martyrdom, his miracles, and the
Emperor's reverence for him, but not a single word of the business about
celibacy, (b) The name of Paphnutius is wanting in the list of Egyptian
bishops present at the Synod. These two arguments of Valesius are weak;
the second has the authority of Rufinus himself against it, who expressly
says that Bishop Paphnutius was present at the Council of Nicaea. If
Valesius means by lists only the signatures at the end of the acts of the
Council, this proves nothing; for these lists are very imperfect, and it is
well known that many bishops whose names are not among these
signatures were present at Nicaea. This argument ex silentio is evidently
insufficient to prove that the anecdote about Paphnutius must be rejected
as false, seeing that it is in perfect harmony with the practice of the
ancient Church, and especially of the Greek Church, on the subject of
clerical marriages. On the other hand, Thomassin pretends that there was
no such practice, and endeavors to prove by quotations from St.
Epiphanius, St. Jerome, Eusebius, and St. John Chrysostom, that even in
the East priests who were married at the time of their ordination were
prohibited from continuing to live with their wives. The texts quoted by
Thomassin prove only that the Greeks gave especial honor to priests
living in perfect continency, but they do not prove that this continence
was a duty incumbent upon all priests; and so much the less, as the fifth
and twenty-fifth Apostolic canons, the fourth canon of Gangra, and the
thirteenth of the Trullan Synod, demonstrate clearly enough what was the
universal custom of the Greek Church on this point. Lupus and Phillips
explained the words of Paphnutius in another sense. According to them,
the Egyptian bishop was not speaking in a general way; he simply desired
that the contemplated law should not include the subdeacons. But this
explanation does not agree with the extracts quoted from Socrates,

175

Sozomen, and Gelasius, who believe Paphnutius intended deacons and
priests as well.

176

THE SYNODAL LETTER.

{Found in Gelasius, Historia Concilii Nicaeni, lib. II, cap. xxxiii.; Socr., H.
E., lib. I., cap. 6; Theodor., H. E., lib. I., cap. 9.)

To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to
our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt,
and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and
great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea, wish health in the Lord .

Fo r a s m u c h as the great and holy Synod, which was assembled at Niece
through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign Constantine,
who brought us together from our several provinces and cities, has
considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it seemed to us
to be necessary that certain things should be communicated from us to you
in writing, so that you might have the means of knowing what has been
mooted and investigated, and also what has been decreed and confirmed.

First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign
Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety
and transgression of Arias and his adherents; and it was unanimously
decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together
with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged,
blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not,
and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time
when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of
vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy
Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine
and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and
of the results they had, ye have either already heard or will hear the
particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact
received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety
prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes
of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.

177

But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and
blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and
division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of
the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and
concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to
inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed
to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency),
decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either
to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he
should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but
should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been
placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on
of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they
shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be
altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or
parish, and have been appointed by our most honorable colleague
Alexander. So that these men are to have no authority to make
appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest
names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of
the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy
colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through
your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are
without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority
to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the
clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of
the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in the
Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to succeed
to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall appear to be
worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the bishop of Alexandria
shall concur in the election and ratify it. This concession has been made to
all the rest; but, on account of his disorderly conduct from the first, and
the rashness and precipitation of his character, the same decree was not
made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man
capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor privilege
should be conceded to him.

178

These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to the
most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most
honored Lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has been
enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to you in
greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow- worker in what has
been done.

We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the
holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly
settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the
custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast
of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those
who have observed Easter from the beginning.

Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common peace
and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye with the
greater honor and with increased love, our colleague your Bishop
Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at so great an
age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be established among
you and all of us. Pray ye also for us all, that the things which have been
deemed advisable may stand fast; for they have been done, as we believe,
to the well-pleasing of Almighty God and of his only Begotten Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever.
Amen.

ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.

{Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It
was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all

179

festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had
soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were
blinded. In rejecting their custom, we may transmit to our descendants the
legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the
time of the Savior's Passion to the present day [according to the day of
the week] . We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the
Jews, for the Savior has shown us another way; our worship follows a
more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the
week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire,
dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their
direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they
who, after the death of the Savior, have no longer been led by reason but
by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess
the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to
all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same
year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then,
could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for
to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But
even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your
soul by communications with such wicked people [the Jews]. Besides,
consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such
great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Savior has left us
only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion,
and he desired [to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how
unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others
are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at
feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a
Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated
in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by
the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of
those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I
have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy,
as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul,
Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and

180

Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these
provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our
reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the
Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has
been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere
celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a
thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept
joyfully the divine favor, and this truly divine command; for all which
takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can
thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I
desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the
divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil
designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish
amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

181

EXCURSUS ON THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE EASTER

QUESTION

(Hefele: Hist, of the Councils, Vol. I., pp. 328 et seqq.)

The differences in the way of fixing the period of Easter did not indeed
disappear after the Council of Nicea. Alexandria and Rome could not agree,
either because one of the two Churches neglected to make the calculation
for Easter, or because the other considered it inaccurate. It is a fact, proved
by the ancient Easter table of the Roman Church, that the cycle of
eighty-four years continued to be used at Rome as before. Now this cycle
differed in many ways from the Alexandrian, and did not always agree
with it about the period for Easter — in fact (a), the Romans used quite
another method from the Alexandrians; they calculated from the epact, and
began from the feria prima of January, (b.) The Romans were mistaken in
placing the full moon a little too soon; whilst the Alexandrians placed it a
little too late, (c.) At Rome the equinox was supposed to fall on March
18th; whilst the Alexandrians placed it on March 21st. (d.) Finally, the
Romans differed in this from the Greeks also; they did not celebrate Easter
the next day when the full moon fell on the Saturday.

Even the year following the Council of Nicea — that is, in 326 — as well
as in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, the Latins celebrated Easter on a
different day from the Alexandrians. In order to put an end to this
misunderstanding, the Synod of Sardica in 343, as we learn from the newly
discovered festival letters of S. Athanasius, took up again the question of
Easter, and brought the two parties (Alexandrians and Romans) to
regulate, by means of mutual concessions, a common day for Easter for the
next fifty years. This compromise, after a few years, was not observed.
The troubles excited by the Arian heresy, and the division which it caused
between the East and the West, prevented the decree of Sardica from being
put into execution; therefore the Emperor Theodosius the Great, after the
re-establishment of peace in the Church, found himself obliged to take
fresh steps for obtaining a complete uniformity in the manner of
celebrating Easter. In 387, the Romans having kept Easter on March 21st,
the Alexandrians did not do so for five weeks later — that is to say, till
April 25th — because with the Alexandrians the equinox was not till

182

March 21st. The Emperor Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus,
Bishop of Alexandria for an explanation of the difference. The bishop
responded to the Emperor's desire, and drew up a chronological table of
the Easter festivals, based upon the principles acknowledged by the
Church of Alexandria. Unfortunately, we now possess only the prologue
of his work.

Upon an invitation from Rome, S. Ambrose also mentioned the period of
this same Easter in 387, in his letter to the bishops of Aemilia, and he
sides with the Alexandrian computation. Cyril of Alexandria abridged the
paschal table of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time for the
ninety-five following Easters — that is, from 436 to 531 after Christ.
Besides this Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was defective in
the Latin calculation; and this demonstration was taken up again, some
time after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybaeum
and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by them to Pope Leo I. In
consequence of these communications, Pope Leo often gave the preference
to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church of Rome. At
the same time also was generally established, the opinion so little
entertained by the ancient authorities of the Church — one might even
say, so strongly in contradiction to their teaching — that Christ partook of
the passover on the 14th Nisan, that he died on the 15th (not on the 14th,
as the ancients considered), that he lay in the grave on the 16th, and rose
again on the 17th. In the letter we have just mentioned, Proterius of
Alexandria openly admitted all these different points.

Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitane, by order of the Roman
Archdeacon Hilary, endeavored to make the Roman and the Alexandrian
calculations agree together. It has been conjectured that subsequently
Hilary, when Pope, brought Victor's calculation into use, in 456 — that is,
at the time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to an end. In the
latter cycle the new moons were marked more accurately, and the chief
differences existing between the Latin and Greek calculations disappeared;
so that the Easter of the Latins generally coincided with that of Alexandria,
or was only a very little removed from it. In cases when the 18 fell on a
Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should be
celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should be postponed
for a week. He indicates both dates in his table, and leaves the Pope to

183

decide what was to be done in each separate case. Even after Victor's
calculations, there still remained great differences in the manner of fixing
the celebration of Easter; and it was Dionysius the Less who first
completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a paschal table having
as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This cycle perfectly corresponded
to that of Alexandria, and thus established that harmony which had been
so long sought in vain. He showed the advantages of his calculation so
strongly, that it was admitted by Rome and by the whole of Italy; whilst
almost the whole of Gaul remained faithful to Victor's canon, and Great
Britain still held the 'cycle of eighty-four years, a little improved by
Sulpicius Severus. When the Heptarchy was evangelized by the Roman
missionaries, the new converts accepted the calculation of Dionysius,
whilst the ancient Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. From
this arose the well-known British dissensions about the celebration of
Easter, which were transplanted by Columban into Gaul. In 729, the
majority of the ancient British Churches accepted the cycle of nineteen
years. It had before been introduced into Spain, immediately after the
conversion of Reccared. Finally, under Charles the Great, the cycle of
nineteen years triumphed over all opposition; and thus the whole of
Christendom was united, for the Quartodecimans had gradually
disappeared.

184

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCILS OF ANCYRA, GANGRA

NEOCAESAREA, ANTIOCH AND LAODICEA, WHICH CANONS

WERE ACCEPTED AND RECEIVED BY THE ECUMENICAL

SYNODS.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE CANONS OF THE

PROVINCIAL SYNODS WHICH IN THIS VOLUME ARE

INTERJECTED BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND

ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

The First Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, reads as
follows: "We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers
made in every synod even until now, should remain in force." And the
Council in Trullo, in its second canon, has enumerated these synods in the
following words. "We set our seal to all the rest of the canons which have
been established by our holy and blessed fathers, that is to say by the 318
God-inspired fathers who met at Nice, and by those who met at Ancyra,
and by those who met at Neocaeesarea, as well as by those who met at
Gangra: in addition to these the canons adopted by those who met at
Antioch in Syria, and by those who met at Laodicea in Phrygia; moreover
by the 150 fathers who assembled in this divinely kept and imperial city,
and by the 200 who were gathered in the metropolis of Ephesus, and by
the 630 holy and blessed fathers who met at Chalcedon," etc., etc.

There can be no doubt that this collection of canons was made at a very
early date, and from the fact that the canons of the First Council of
Constantinople do not appear, as they naturally would, immediately after
those of Nice, we may not improbably conclude that the collection was
formed before that council assembled. For it will be noticed that Nice,
although not the earliest in date, takes the precedence as being of
ecumenical rank. And this is expressly stated in the caption to the canons
of Ancyra according to the reading in the Paris Edition of Balsamon. "The
canons of the holy Fathers who assembled at Ancyra; which are indeed

185

older than those made at Nice, but placed after them, on account of the
authority (auGevxiocv) of the Ecumenical Synod."

On the arrangement of this code much has been written and Archbishop
Ussher has made some interesting suggestions, but all appear to be
attended with more or less difficulties. The reader will find in Bp:
Beveridge, in the Prolegomena to his Synodicon a very full treatment of
the point, the gist of the matter is admirably given in the following brief
note which I take from Hammond. In speaking of this early codex of the
Church he says:

(Hammond, Definitions of Faith and Canons of Discipline, pp. 134 and
135.)

That this collection was made and received by the Church previous to the
Council of Chalcedon is evident from the manner in which several of the
Canons are quoted in that Council. Thus in the 4th Action, in the matter of
Carosus and Dorotheus, who had acknowledged Dioscorus as Bishop,
though he had been deposed from his bishopric, "the holy Synod said, let
the holy Canons of the Fathers be read, and inserted in the records; and
Actius the Archdeacon taking the book read the 83d Canon, If any
Bishops, etc. And again the 84th Canon, concerning those who separate
themselves, If any Presbyter," etc. These Canons are the 4th and 5th of
Antioch. Again, in the 1 1th Action, in the matter of Bassianus and
Stephanus who disputed about the Bishopric of Ephesus, both requested
the Canons to be read, "And the Judges said, Let the Canons be read. And
Leontius Bishop of Magnesia read the 95th Canon, If any Bishop, etc.,
and again out of the same book the 96th Canon, If any Bishop," etc. These
Canons are the 16th and 17th of Antioch. Now if we add together the
different Canons in the Code of the Universal Church in the order in which
they follow in the enumeration of them by the Council of Trullo and in
other documents, we find that the 4th and 5th of Antioch, are the 83d and
84th of the whole Code, and the 16th and 17th of Antioch, the 95th and
96th. Nice 20, Ancyra 25, Neocaesarea 14, Gangra 20; all which make 79.
Next come those of Antioch, the 4th and 5th of which therefore will be
respectively the 83d and 84th, and the 16th and 17th the 95th and 96th.

186

The fact of the existence of such a code does not prove by any means that
it was the only collection extant at the time nor that it was universally
known. In fact we have good reason, as we shall see in connection with the
Council of Sardica, to believe that in many codices, probably especially in
the West, the canons of that council followed immediately after those of
Nice, and that without any break or note whatever. But we know that the
number of canons attributed to Nice must have been twenty or else the
numbering of the codex read from at Chalcedon would be quite
inexplicable. It would naturally suggest itself to the mind that possibly the
divergence in the canonical codes was the result of the local feelings of East
and West with regard to the decrees of Sardica. But this supposition,
plausible as it appears, must be rejected, since at the Quinisext Council,
where it is not disputed there was a strong anti-Western bias, the canons
of Sardica are expressly enumerated among those which the fathers receive
as of Ecumenical authority. It will be noticed that the code set forth by the
Council in Trullo differs from the code used at Chalcedon by having the
so-called "Canons of the Apostles" prefixed to it, and by having a large
number of other canons, including those of Sardica, appended, of which
more will be said when treating of that Council.

The order which I have followed my justly be considered as that of the
earliest accepted codex canonum, at least of the East.

187

THE COUNCIL OF ANCYRA

A.D. 314.

Emperors. — Constantine and Licinius.

Elenchus.

Historical Note.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Canon XIX on Digamy

HISTORICAL NOTE.

Soon after the death of the Emperor Maximin, a council was held at
Ancyra, the capital of Galatia. Only about a dozen bishops were present,
and the lists of subscriptions which are found appended to the canons are
not to be depended on, being evidently in their present form of later
authorship; as has been shewn by the Ballerini. If we may at all trust the
lists, it would seem that nearly every part of Syria and Asia Minor was
represented, and that therefore the council while small in numbers was of
considerable weight. It is not certain whether Vitalis, (bishop of Antioch,)
presided or Marcellus, who was at the time bishop of Ancyra. The honor
is by the Libellus Synodicus assigned to the latter.

The disciplinary decrees of this council possess a singular interest as being
the first enacted after the ceasing of the persecution of the Christians and
as providing for the proper treatment of the lapsed. Recently two papyri
have been recovered, containing the official certificates granted by the
Roman government to those who had lapsed and offered sacrifice. These
apostates were obliged to acknowledge in public their adhesion to the
national religion of the empire, and then were provided with a document

188

certifying to this fact to keep them from further trouble. Dr. Harnack
(Preussische Jahrbucher) writing of the yielding of the lapsed says:

"The Church condemned this as lying and denial of the faith, and after the
termination of the persecution, these unhappy people were partly
excommunicated, partly obliged to submit to severe discipline. Who would
ever suppose that the records of their shame would come doom to our
time? — and yet it has actually happened. Two of these papers have been
preserved, contrary to all likelihood, by the sands of Egypt which so
carefully keep what has been entrusted to them. The first was found by
Krebs in a heap of papyrus, that had come to Berlin; the other was found
by Wessely in the papyrus collection of Archduke Rainer. T, Diogenes,
have constantly sacrificed and made offerings, and have eaten in your
presence the sacrificial meat, and I petition you to give me a certificate.'
Who today, without deep emotion, can read this paper and measure the
trouble and terror of heart under which the Christians of that day
collapsed?"

189

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ANCYRA.

{Found in Labbe and Cossart's Concilia, and all Collections, in the Greek
text together with several Latin versions of different dates. Also in Justellus
and Beveridge. There will also be found annotations by Routh, and a
reprint of the notes of Christopher Justellus and ofBp. Beveridge in Vol.
TV. of the Reliquiae Sacrae, ed. alters, 1846.)

CANON I

With regard to those presbyters who have offered sacrifices and
afterwards returned to the conflict, not with hypocrisy, but in sincerity, it
has seemed good that they may retain the honor of their chair; provided
they had not used management, arrangement, or persuasion, so as to
appear to be subjected to the torture, when it was applied only in seeming
and pretense. Nevertheless it is not lawful for them to make the oblation,
nor to preach, nor in short to perform any act of sacerdotal function.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME TO CANONS I. AND II

Presbyters and deacons who offered sacrifice and afterwards renewed the
contest for the truth shall have only their seat and honor, but shall not
perform any of the holy functions.

190

ZONARAS

Of those that yielded to the tyrants in the persecution, and offered
sacrifice, some, after having been subjected to torture, being unable to
withstand to the end its force and intensity, were conquered, and denied
the faith; some, through effeminacy, before they experienced any suffering,
gave way, and lest they should seem to sacrifice voluntarily they
persuaded the executioners, either by bribes or entreaties, to manifest
perhaps a greater degree of severity against them, and seemingly to apply
the torture to them, in order that sacrificing under these circumstances
they; might seem to have denied Christ, conquered by force, and not
through effeminacy.

HEFELE

It was quite justifiable, and in accordance with the ancient and severe
discipline of the Church, when this Synod no longer allowed priests, even
when sincerely penitent, to discharge priestly functions. It was for this
same reason that the two Spanish bishops, Martial and Basilides, were
deposed, and that the judgment given against them was confirmed in 254
by an African synod held under St. Cyprian.

The reader will notice how clearly the functions of a presbyter are set
forth in this canon as they were understood at that time, they were "to
offer" (rcpoocpepeiv) "to preach" (opiXeiv) and "to perform any act of
sacerdotal function" (Xeixcupyeiv xi xoov lepocxiKoov XeixcupyKDv).

This canon is in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum. Pars I., Dist. 1., c.
xxxii.

191

CANON II

It is likewise decreed that deacons who have sacrificed and afterwards
resumed the conflict, shall enjoy their other honors, but shall abstain from
every sacred ministry, neither bringing forth the bread and the cup, nor
making proclamations. Nevertheless, if any of the bishops shall observe in
them distress of mind and meek humiliation, it shall be lawful to the
bishops to grant more indulgence, or to take away [what has been granted].

For Ancient Epitome see above under Canon I.

In this canon the work and office of a deacon as then understood is set
forth, viz.: "to bring forth" (whatever that may mean) "bread or wine"
ocpTov r| TtotTipiov ocvoccpepeiv) and "to act the herald" (KripiSaaeiv).
There is considerable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the first of
these expressions. It was always the duty of the deacon to serve the
priest, especially when he ministered the Holy Communion, but this
phrase may refer to one of two such ministrations, either to bringing the
bread and wine to the priest at the offertory, and this is the view of Van
Espen, or to the distribution of the Holy Sacrament to the people. It has
been urged that the deacon had ceased to administer the species of bread
before the time of this council, but Hefele shews that the custom had not
entirely died out.

If I may be allowed to offer a suggestion, the use of the disjunctive r\
seems rather to point to the administration of the sacrament than to the
bringing of the oblations at the offertory.

The other diaconal function "to act the herald" refers to the reading of the
Holy Gospel, and to the numerous proclamations made by the deacons at
mass both according to the Greek and Latin Rite.

This canon is in the Corpus Juris Canonici united with the foregoing.
Decretum., Pars I., Dist. 1., c. xxxii.

192

CANON III

Those who have fled and been apprehended, or have been betrayed by
their servants; or those who have been otherwise despoiled of their goods,
or have endured tortures, or have been imprisoned and abused, declaring
themselves to be Christians; or who have been forced to receive something
which their persecutors violently thrust into their hands, or meat [offered
to idols], continually professing that they were Christians; and who, by
their whole apparel, and demeanor, and humility of life, always give
evidence of grief at what has happened; these persons, inasmuch as they
are free from sin, are not to be repelled from the communion; and if,
through an extreme strictness or ignorance of some things, they have been
repelled, let them forthwith be re-admitted. This shall hold good alike of
clergy and laity. It has also been considered whether laymen who have
fallen under the same compulsion may be admitted to orders, and we have
decreed that, since they have in no respect been guilty, they may be
ordained; provided their past course of life be found to have been upright.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.

Those who have been subjected to torments and have suffered violence,
and have eaten food offered to idols after being tyrannized over, shall not
be deprived of communion. And laymen who have endured the same
sufferings, since they have in no way transgressed, if they wish to be
ordained, they may be, if otherwise they be blameless

In the translation the word "abused" is given as the equivalent of
7tepiG%ia9evTocc;, which Zonaras translated, "if their clothes have been
torn from their bodies," and this is quite accurate if the reading is correct,

193

but Routh has found in the Bodleian several MSS. which had
7t£pia%e9evToc<;. Hefele adopts this reading and translates "declaring
themselves to be Christians but who have subsequently been vanquished,
whether their oppressors have by force put incense into their hands or
have compelled them, etc." Hammond translates "and have been harassed
by their persecutors forcibly putting something into their hands or who
have been compelled, etc." The phrase is obscure at best with either
reading is reading.

This canon is in Corpus Juris Canonici the united to the two previous
canons, Decretum, Pars I., Diet. 1., c. xxxii.

194

CANON IV

Concerning those who have been forced to sacrifice, and who, in
addition, have partaken of feasts in honor of the idols; as many as were
haled away, but afterwards went up with a cheerful countenance, and wore
their costliest apparel, and partook with indifference of the feast provided;
it is decreed that all such be hearers for one year, and prostrators for three
years, and that they communicate in prayers only for two years, and then
return to full communion.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

Such as have been led away and have with joy gone up and eaten are to be
in subjection for six years.

In the Greek the word for "full communion" is to TeXeiov ("the
perfection"), an expression frequently used by early writers to denote the
Holy Communion.Vide Suicer, Thesaurus ad h. v.

BINGHAM.

[The Holy Communion was so called as being] that sacred mystery which
unites us to, Christ, and gives us the most consummate perfection that we
are capable of in this world.

195

CANON V

As many, however, as went up in mourning attire and sat down and ate,
weeping throughout the whole entertainment, if they have fulfilled the
three years as prostrators, let them be received without oblation; and if
they did not eat, let them be prostrators two years, and in the third year
let them communicate without oblation, so that in the fourth year they
may be received into full communion. But the bishops have the right, after
considering the character of their conversion, either to deal with them more
leniently, or to extend the time. But, first of all, let their life before and
since be thoroughly examined, and let the indulgence be determined
accordingly.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Those who have gone up in mourning weeds, and have eaten with tears,
shall be prostrators for three years; but if they basic not eaten, then, for
two years. And according to their former and after life, whether good or
evil, they shall find the bishop gentle or severe,

Herbst and Routh have been followed by many in supposing that
"oblation" (Ttpoacpopd) in this canon refers to the sacrament of the altar.
But this seems to be a mistake, as the word while often used to denote the
whole, act of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, is not used to mean the
receiving alone of that sacrament.

Suicer {Thesaurus s. v. rcpoacpopoc) translates "They may take part in
divine worship, but not actively," that is, "they may not mingle their
offerings with those of the faithful."

196

HEFELE

But as those who cannot present their offerings during the sacrifice are
excluded from the communion, the complete meaning of the canon is:
"They may be present at divine service, but may neither offer nor
communicate with the faithful."

197

CANON VI

Concerning those who have yielded merely upon threat of penalties and
of the confiscation of their goods, or of banishment, and have sacrificed,
and who till this present time have not repented nor been converted, but
who now, at the time of this synod, have approached with a purpose of
conversion, it is decreed that they be received as hearers till the Great Day,
and that after the Great Day they be prostrators for three years, and for
two years more communicate without oblation, and then come to full
communion, so as to complete the period of six full years. And if any have
been admitted to penance before this synod, let the beginning of the six
years be reckoned to them from that time. Nevertheless, if there should be
any danger or prospect of death whether from disease or any other cause,
let them be received, but under limitation.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

A man who yielded to threats alone, and has sacrificed, and then repented
let him for five years be a prostrator.

ZONARAS

But should any of those debarred from communion as penitents be seized
with illness or in any other way be brought nigh to death, they may be
received to communion; but in accordance with this law or distinction, that
if they escape death and recover their health, they shall be altogether
deprived again of communion until they have finished their six years
penance.

198

HAMMOND.

"The Great Day," that is, Easter Day. The great reverence which the
Primitive Church from the earliest ages felt for the holy festival of Easter
is manifested by the application of the epithet Great, to everything
connected with it. The preceding Friday, i.e., Good Friday, was called the
Great Preparation, the Saturday, the Great Sabbath, and the whole week,
the Great Week.

199

CANON VII

Concerning those who have partaken at a heathen feast in a place
appointed for heathens, but who have brought and eaten their own meats,
it is decreed that they be received after they have been prostrators two
years; but whether with oblation, every bishop must determine after he
has made examination into the rest of their life.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

If anyone having his own food, shall eat it with heathen at their feasts, let
him be a prostrator for two years.

HEFELE

Several Christians tried with worldly prudence, to take a middle course.
On the one hand, hoping to escape persecution, they were present at the
feasts of the heathen sacrifices, which were held in the buildings adjoining
the temples; and on the other, in order to appease their consciences, they
took their own food, and touched nothing that had been offered to the
gods. These Christians forgot that St. Paul had ordered that meats
sacrificed to the gods should be avoided, not because they were tainted in
themselves, as the idols were nothing, but from another, and in fact a
twofold reason: 1st, Because, in partaking of them, some had still the idols
in their hearts, that is to say, were still attached to the worship of idols,
and thereby sinned; and 2dly, Because others scandalized their brethren,
and sinned in that way. To these two reasons a third may be added,
namely, the hypocrisy and the duplicity of those Christians who wished

200

to appear heathens, and nevertheless to remain Christians. The Synod
punished them with two years of penance in the third degree, and gave to
each bishop the right, at the expiration of this time, either to admit them to
communion, or to make them remain some time longer in the fourth degree.

201

CANON vm

Let those who have twice or thrice sacrificed under compulsion, be
prostrators four years, and communicate without oblation two years, and
the seventh year they shall be received to full communion.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.

Whoever has sacrificed a second or third time, but has been led thereto by
force, shall be a prostrator for seven years

VAN ESPEN

This canon shews how in the Church it was a received principle that
greater penances ought to be imposed for the frequent commission of the
same crime, and consequently it was then believed that the number of
times the sin had been committed should be expressed in confession, that
the penance might correspond to the sin, greater or less as the case may be,
and the time of probation be accordingly protracted or remitted.

202

CANON IX

As many as have not merely apostatized, but have risen against their
brethren and forced them [to apostatize], and have been guilty of their
being forced, let these for three years take the place of hearers, and for
another term of six years that of prostrators, and for another year let them
communicate without oblation, in order that, when they have fulfilled the
space of ten years, they may partake of the communion; but during this
time the rest of their life must also be enquired into.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Whoever has not only sacrificed voluntarily but also has forced another to
sacrifice, shall be a prostrator for ten years.

[It will be noticed that this epitome does not agree with the canon,
although Aristenus does not note the discrepancy.]

VAN ESPEN

From this canon we are taught that the circumstances of the sin that has
been committed are to be taken into account in assigning the penance.

ARISTENUS.

When the ten years are past, he is worthy of perfection, and fit to receive
the divine sacraments. Unless perchance an examination of the rest of his
life demands his exclusion from the divine communion.

203

CANON X

They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained
that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who
afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was
conceded to them by the bishop. But if any were silent on this matter,
undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards
proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

Whoso is to be ordained deacon, if he has before announced to the bishop
that he cannot persevere unmarried, let him marry and let him be a
deacon; but if he shall have kept silence, should he take a wife afterwards
let him be cast out.

VAN ESPEN

The case proposed to the synod and decided in this canon was as follows:
When the bishop was willing to ordain two to the diaconate, one of them
declared that he did not intend to bind himself to preserving perpetual
continence, but intended to get married, because he had not the power to
remain continent. The other said nothing. The bishop laid his hands on
each and conferred the diaconate.

After the ordination it fell out that both got married, the question
propounded is, What must be done in each case? The synod ruled that he
who had made protestation at his ordination should remain in his ministry,
"because of the license of the bishop," that is that he might contract

204

matrimony after the reception of the diaconate. With regard to him who
kept silence the synod declares that he should cease from his ministry.

The resolution of the synod to the first question shews that there was a
general law which bound the deacons to continence; but this synod judged
it meet that the bishops for just cause might dispense with this law, and
this license or dispensation was deemed to have been given by the bishop
if he ordained him after his protestation at the time of his ordination that
he intended to be married, because he could not remain as he was; giving
by the act of ordination his tacit approbation. Moreover from this decision
it is also evident that not only was the ordained deacon allowed to enter
but also to use matrimony after his ordination... Moreover the deacon who
after this protestation entered and used matrimony, not only remained a
deacon, but continued in the exercise of his ministry.

On the whole subject of Clerical Celibacy in the Early Church see the
Excursus devoted to that matter.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum Pars I., Dist.
xxviii, c. viii.

205

CANON XL

It is decreed that virgins who have been betrothed, and who have
afterwards been carried off by others, shall be restored to those to whom
they had formerly been betrothed, even though they may have suffered
violence from the ravisher.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

If a young girl who is engaged be stolen away by force by another man, let
her be restored to the former.

HEFELE

This canon treats only of betrothed women (of the sponsalia defuturo)
not of those who are married (of the sponsalia de proesenti). In the case of
the latter there could be no doubt as to the duty of restitution. The man
who was betrothed was, moreover, at liberty to receive his affianced bride
who had been carried off or not.

JOHNSON

Here Balsamon puts in a very proper cave, viz.: If he to whom she was
espoused demand her to be his wife.

Compare St. Basil's twenty-second canon in his letter to Amphilochius,
where it is so ruled.

206

CANON XII

It is decreed that they who have offered sacrifice before their baptism, and
were afterwards baptized, may be promoted to orders, inasmuch as they
have been cleansed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

Whoso has sacrificed before his baptism, after it shall be guiltless.

HEFELE

This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacrificed before
baptism; for if a heathen sacrificed before having embraced Christianity, he
certainly could not be reproached for it after his admission. It was quite a
different case with a catechumen, who had already declared for
Christianity, but who, during the persecution had lost courage, and
sacrificed. In this case it might be asked whether he could still be admitted
to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized catechumen could
afterwards be promoted to holy orders.

207

CANON xm

It is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons., and
most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the
bishop given in writing, in another parish.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

A chorepiscopus is not to ordain without the consent of the bishop.

HEFELE

If the first part of the thirteenth canon is easy to understand, the second,
on the contrary, presents a great difficulty; for a priest of a town could not
in any case have the power of consecrating priests and deacons, least of all
in a strange diocese. Many of the most learned men have, for this reason,
supposed that the Greek text of the second half of the canon, as we have
read it, is incorrect or defective. It wants, say they, rcoieiv xi or aliquid
agere, i.e., to complete a religious function. To confirm this supposition,
they have appealed to several ancient versions, especially to that of
Isidore: sed nee presbyteris civitatis sine episcopi proecepto amplius
aliquid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literature ejus in unaquaque (some
read ev eKocaTTi instead of ev exepoc) parochia aliquid agere. The ancient
Roman MS. of the canons, Codex Canonum, has the same reading, only
that it has provincia instead of parochia. Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of
Carthage, who long ago made a collection of canons, translates in the same
way in his Breviatio Canonum: Ut presbyteri civitatis sine jussu episcopi

208

nihil jubeant, nee in unaquaque parochia aliquid agant. Van Espen has
explained this canon in the same way.

Routh has given another interpretation. He maintained that there was not a
word missing in this canon, but that at the commencement one ought to
read, according to several MSS. XcopeTtiaKorcoic, in the dative, and further
down d^Xoc \xr\\ \xr\de instead of dMoc pr|8e then TtpeoP^xepotx; (in the
accusative) noXecoq and finally eKacrcri instead of exepoc and that we
must therefore translate, "Chorepiscopi are not permitted to consecrate
priests and deacons (for the country) still less (ocMoc \ir\v jxn.Se) can they
consecrate priests for the town without the consent of the bishop of the
place." The Greek text, thus modified according to some MSS., especially
those in the Bodleian Library, certainly gives a good meaning. Still dXXoc
ut|v jxr|8e does not mean, but still less: it means, but certainly not, which
makes a considerable difference.

Besides this, it can very seldom have happened that the chorepiscopi
ordained presbyters or deacons for a town; and if so, they were already
forbidden, at least implicitly, in the first part of the canon.

209

CANON xrv

It is decreed that among the clergy, presbyters and deacons who abstain
from flesh shall taste of it, and afterwards, if they shall so please, may
abstain. But if they disdain it, and will not even eat herbs served with
flesh, but disobey the canon, let them be removed from their order.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

A priest who is an abstainer from flesh, let him merely taste it and so let
him abstain. But if he will not taste even the vegetables cooked with the
meat let him be deposed (7t£7tdcua9co).

There is a serious dispute about the reading of the Greek text. I have
followed Routh, who, relying on three MSS. the Collectio of John of
Antioch and the Latin versions, reads el 8e pSeXiSaaoivco instead of the
ei 8e (3oijXoivto of the ordinary text, which as Bp. Beveridge had
pointed out before has no meaning unless a \ii\ be introduced.

Zonaras points out that the canon chiefly refers to the Love feasts.

I cannot agree with Hefele in his translation of the last clause. He makes
the reference to "this present canon," I think it is clearly to the 53 of the
so-called Canons of the Apostles, x& kocvovi "the well-known Canon."

210

CANON XV

Concerning things belonging to the church, which presbyters may have
sold when there was no bishop, it is decreed that the Church property
shall be reclaimed; and it shall be in the discretion of the bishop whether it
is better to receive the purchase price, or not; for oftentimes the revenue of
the things sold might field them the greater value.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Sales of Church goods made by presbyters are null, and the matter shall
rest with the bishop.

HEFELE

If the purchaser of ecclesiastical properties has realized more by the
temporary revenue of such properties than the price of the purchase, the
Synod thinks there is no occasion to restore him this price, as he has
already received a sufficient indemnity from the revenue, and as, according
to the rules then in force, interest drawn from the purchase money was not
permitted. Besides, the purchaser had done wrong in buying ecclesiastical
property during the vacancy of a see (sede vacante). Beveridge and Routh
have shown that in the text ocvocKa^eiaGoci and TtpoooSov must be read.

211

CANON XVI.

Let those who have been or who are guilty of bestial lusts, if they have
sinned while under twenty years of age, be prostrators fifteen years, and
afterwards communicate in prayers; then, having passed five years in this
communion, let them have a share in the oblation. But let their life as
prostrators be examined, and so let teem receive indulgence; and if any
have been insatiable in their crimes, then let their time of prostration be
prolonged. And if any who have passed this age and had wives, have fallen
into this sin, let them be prostrators twenty-five years, and then
communicate in prayers; and, after they have been five years in the
communion of prayers, let them share the oblation. And if any married
men of more than fifty years of age have so sinned, let them be admitted to
communion only at the point of death.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Whoever shall have commerce with animals devoid of reason being
younger than twenty, shall be a prostrator for fifteen years If he is over that
age and has a wife when befalls into this wickedness he shall be a
prostrator for twenty-five years. But the married man who shall do so
when over fifty years of age, shall be a prostrator to his life's end.

It is interesting to compare with this, as Van Espen does, the canon of the
Church of England set forth in the tenth century under King Edgar, where,
Part II., canon xvi., we read —

"If any one twenty years of age shall defile himself with a beast, or shall
commit sodomy let him fast fifteen years; and if he have a wife and be
forty years of age, and shall do such a deed let him abstain now and fast all

212

the rest of his life, neither shall he presume until he is dying to receive the
Lord's body. Youths and fools who shall do any such fixing shall be
soundly trounced."

213

CANON XVII

Defilers of themselves with beasts, being also leprous, who have infected
others [with the leprosy of this crime], the holy Synod commands to pray
among the hiemantes.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

A leper who goes in to a beast or even to leprous women, shall pray with
the hybernantes.

Ae7tpc6aavToc<; is from Xercpoco not from Xe7tpocco and therefore cannot
mean "have been lepers," but "have made others rough and scabby." It is
only in the passive and in Alexandrian Greek that it has the meaning to
become leprous. Vide Liddell and Scott.

There seems but little doubt that the word is to be understood spiritually
as suggested above.

The last word of the canon is also a source of confusion. Both Beveridge
and Routh understand by the %eijj,oc^6jj,evoi those possessed with devils.
Suicer however (Thesaurus) thinks that the penitents of the lowest degree
are intended, who had no right to enter the church, but were exposed in the
open porch to the inclemencies (%eipcbv) of the weather. But, after all it
matters little, as the possessed also were forced to remain in the same
place, and shared the same name.

Besides the grammatical reason for the meaning of ^e7tpc6oavxa<; given
above there is another argument of Hefele's, as follows:

214

HEFELE

It is clear that Xe7tpc6aocvToc<; cannot possibly mean "those who have been
lepers"; for there is no reason to be seen why those who were cured of
that malady should have to remain outside the church among the flentes.
Secondly, it is clear that the words Xenovq 6vtoc<;, etc. are added to give
force to the expression dXoyet)ad(j,evoi The preceding canon had decreed
different penalties for different kinds of aXoyevad\ie\oi But that
pronounced by canon 17: being much severer than the preceding ones, the
aXoyevad\ie\oi of this canon must be greater sinners than those of the
former one. This greater guilt cannot consist in the fact of a literal leprosy;
for this malady was not a consequence of bestiality. But their sin was
evidently greater when they tempted others to commit it. It is therefore
Xenpa in the figurative sense that we are to understand, and our canon
thus means; "Those who were spiritually leprous through this sin, and
tempting others to commit it made them leprous."

215

CANON xvm

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by
the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and
wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them,
let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are
willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were
presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honor. But if they shall act
seditiously against the bishops established there, the honor of the
presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

If a bishop who has been duly constituted, is not received by the Church to
which he was elected, but gives trouble to other bishops, let him be
excommunicated.

If he wishes to be numbered among the presbyters, let him be so numbered.
But if he shall be at outs with the bishops duly constituted there, let him be
deprived of the honor of being even a presbyter.

The word I have translated "suspended from office and communion" is
occpopi^eaGoci. Suicer in his Thesaurus shews that this word does not
mean only, as some have supposed, a deprivation of office and dignity (e.
g., Van Espen), but also an exclusion from the communion of the Church.

216

CANON XIX

If any persons who profess virginity shall disregard their profession, let
them fulfill the term of digamists. And, moreover, we prohibit women who
are virgins from living with men as sisters.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

Whoever has professed virginity and afterwards annuls it, let him be cut off
for four years. And virgins shall not go to any as to brothers.

HAMMOND.

According to some of the ancient canons digamists were to be suspended
from communion for one or two years, though Beveridge and others doubt
whether the rule was not meant to apply to such marriages only as were
contracted before a former one was dissolved. Bingham thinks that it was
intended to discountenance marrying after an unlawful divorce. (Ant., Bk.
xv, c. iv., 18.)

HEFELE

The first part of this canon regards all young persons — men as well as
women — who have taken a vow of virginity, and who, having thus, so to
speak, betrothed themselves to God are guilty of a quasi digamy in
violating that promise. They must therefore incur the punishment of

217

digamy (successiva) which, according to St. Basil the Great, consisted of
one year's seclusion.

This canon is found in Gratian's Decretum (P. II., Causa xxvii., Q. i., c.
xxiv.) as follows: "As many as have professed virginity and have broken
their vow and contemned their profession shall be treated as digamists,
that is as those who have contracted a second marriage."

218

EXCURSUS ON SECOND MARRIAGES, CALLED DIGAMY.

To distinguish contemporaneous from successive bigamy I shall use
throughout this volume the word "digamy" to denote the latter, and shall
thus avoid much confusion which otherwise is unavoidable.

The whole subject of second, and even of third and fourth marriages has a
great interest for the student of early ecclesiastical legislation, and I shall
therefore treat the matter here (as I shall hope) sufficiently and refer the
reader for its fuller treatment to books more especially upon the subject.

The general position of the Church seems to have been to discourage all
second marriages, and to point to a single matrimonial connection as the
more excellent way. But at the same time the principle that the marriage
obligation is severed by death was universally recognized, and however
much such fresh marriages may have been disapproved of, such
disapproval did not rest upon any supposed adulterous character in the
new connection. I cite a portion of an admirable article upon the subject by
an English barrister of Lincoln' s Inn.

(J. M. Ludlow, in Smith and Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities, sub voce Digamy.)

Although among the earlier Romans there was one form of marriage which
was indissoluble, viz., that by confarreatio, still generally a second
marriage either after death or divorce was by no means viewed with
disfavor. Meanwhile an intensifying spirit of asceticism was leading many
in the Church to a condemnation of second marriage in all eases. Minucius
Felix (Octavius, c. 31, 5) only professes on behalf of the Christians a
preference for monogamy. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) seems to
confine the term marriage to the first lawful union (Stromata, Bk. ii.).... It
would seem, however, that when these views were carried to the extent of
absolute prohibition of second marriages generally by several heretical
sects, the Montanists (see Augustine, De Hoeresibus, c. xxvi.), the Cathari
(ib., c. xxxviii.), and a portion at least of the Novatianists (see Cotel., Patr.
Apol., vol. L, p. 91, n. 16) the Church saw the necessity of not fixing such

219

a yoke on the necks of the laity. The forbiddance of second marriage, or its
assimilation to fornication, was treated as one of the marks of heresy
(Augustin. u. s.; and see also his De Bono Vid., c. vi.). The sentiment of
Augustine (in the last referred to passage) may be taken to express the
Church's judgment at the close of the fourth century: "Second marriages
are not to be condemned, but had in less honor," and see also Epiphanius,
in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith.

To these remarks of Mr. Ludlow's, I may add that St. Ambrose had
written (De Viduis, c. xi.), "We do not prohibit second marriages, but we
do not approve marriages frequently reiterated." St. Jerome had spoken
still more strongly (Ep. lxvii., Apol. pro libris adv. Jovin.), "I do not
condemn digamists, or even trigamists or, if such a thing can be said,
octagamists." It does not seem that the penance which was imposed in the
East upon those entering into second nuptials was imposed in the West.
The Corpus Juris Canonici contains two decretals, one of Alexander III.
and another of Urban III., forbidding priests to give the nuptial benediction
in cases of reiterated marriage. In the East at second marriages the
benediction of the crown is omitted and "propitiatory prayers" are to be
said. Mr. Ludlow points out that in the "Sanctions and Decrees," falsely
attributed to the Council of Nice and found in Mansi (vol. ii., col. 1029) it
is expressly stated that widowers and widows may marry, but that "the
blessing of the crowns is not to be imparted to them, for this is only once
given, at first marriages, and is not to be repeated.... But if one of them be
not a widower or widow, let such one alone receive the benediction with
the paranymphs, those whom he will."

220

CANON XX

If the wife of anyone has committed adultery or if any man commit
adultery it seems fit that he shall be restored to full communion after seven
years passed in the prescribed degrees [of penance].

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

An adulteress and an adulterer are to be cut off for seven years.

HEFELE

The simplest explanation of this canon is "that the man or woman who
has violated the marriage bond shall undergo a seven years' penance"; but
many reject this explanation, because the text says ocuxov ruxeiv and
consequently can refer only to the husband. Fleury and Routh think the
canon speaks, as does the seventieth of Elvira, of a woman who has
broken the marriage tie with the knowledge and consent of her husband.
The husband would therefore in this case be punished for this permission,
just as if he had himself committed adultery. Van Espen has given another
explanation: "That he who marries a woman already divorced for adultery
is as criminal as if he had himself committed adultery." But this
explanation appears to us more forced than that already given; and we
think that the Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras were right in
giving the explanation we have offered first as the most natural. They
think that the Synod punished every adulterer, whether man or woman, by
a seven years' penance. There is no reason for making a mistake because
only the word oruxov occurs in the passage in which the penalty is fixed;

221

for ocutov here means the guilty party, and applies equally to the woman
and the man: besides, in the preceding canon the masculine oaoi
e7tayyeXX6(xevoi includes young men and young women also. It is
probable that the Trullan Synod of 692, in forming its eighty- seventh
canon, had in view the twentieth of Ancyra. The sixty-ninth canon of
Elvira condemned to a lighter punishment — only five years of penance —
him who had been only once guilty of adultery.

222

CANON XXI

Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which
they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a
former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have
assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we
have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the
prescribed degrees.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

Harlots taking injurious medicines are to be subjected to penance for ten
years.

The phrase "and to this some have assented" is the translation of
Hervetus, Van Espen, and Hefele. Dr. Routh suggests to understand oci
and translate, "the same punishment will be inflicted on those who assist
in causing miscarriages," but this seems rather an unnatural and strained
rendering of the Greek.

223

CANON XXII.

Concerning willful murderers let them remain prostrators; but at the end
of life let them be indulged with full communion.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

A voluntary homicide may at the last attain perfection.

VAN ESPEN

It is noteworthy how singularly appositely Constantine] Harmenopulus
the Scholiast in the Epitom. Canonum., Sect, v., tit. 3, tells the following
story: "In the time of the Patriarch Luke, a certain bishop gave absolution
in writing to a soldier who had committed voluntary homicide, after a very
short time of penance; and afterwards when he was accused before the
synod of having done so, he defended himself by citing the canon which
gives bishops the power of remitting or increasing the length of their
penance to penitents. But he was told in answer that this was granted
indeed to pontiffs but not that they should use it without examination, and
with too great lenity. Wherefore the synod subjected the soldier to the
canonical penance and the bishop it mulcted for a certain time, bidding him
cease from the exercise of his ministry."

224

CANON XXIII

Concerning involuntary homicides, a former decree directs that they be
received to full communion after seven years [of penance], according to the
prescribed degrees; but this second one, that they fulfill a term of five
years.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

An involuntary homicide shall be subjected to penance for five years.

VAN ESPEN

Of voluntary and involuntary homicides St. Basil treats at length in his
Canonical Epistle ad Amphilochium, can. viii., 56:and Mi., and fixes the
time of penance at twenty years for voluntary and ten years for
involuntary homicides. It is evident that the penance given for this crime
varied in different churches, although it is clear from the great length of the
penance, how enormous the crime was considered, no light or short
penance being sufficient.

225

CANON XXIV

They who practice divination, and follow the customs of the heathen, or
who take men to their houses for the invention of sorceries, or for
lustrations, fall under the canon of five years' [penance], according to the
prescribed degrees; that is, three years as prostrators, and two of prayer
without oblation.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

Whoso uses vaticination and whoso introduces anyone into his house for
the sake of making a poison or a lustration let him be subject to penance
for five years.

I read eGvcov for %povcov and accordingly translate "of the heathen."

VAN ESPEN

It is greatly to be desired that bishops and pastors today would take
example from the fathers of Ancyra and devote their attention strenuously
to eliminate superstition from the people, and would expound with
animation to the people the enormity of this crime.

226

CANON XXV.

One who had betrothed a maiden, corrupted her sister, so that she
conceived. After that he married his betrothed, but she who had been
corrupted hanged herself. The parties to this affair were ordered to be
received among the co-standers after ten years [of penance] according to
the prescribed degrees.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME TO CANON XXV

A certain body after being engaged to marry a young girl, violates her
sister and then takes her to wife. The first is suffocated. All who were
cognizant of the affair are to be subject to penance for ten years.

I have followed the usual translation "hanged herself," which is the
ordinary dictionary-meaning of 6c7tdy%co but Hefele says that it signifies
any and every variety of suicides.

BALSAMON

In this case we have many nefarious crimes committed, fornication,
unlawful marriage [i.e. with the sister of one's mistress] and murder. In
that case [mentioned by St. Basil in Canon lxxviij. where only seven years
penance is enjoined] there is only a nefarious marriage [i.e. with a wife's
sister] .

227

THE COUNCIL OF NEOCAES AREA
A.D. 315 (circa).

(Hefele thinks somewhat later, but before 325.)

Elenchus.

Historical Note.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

HISTORICAL NOTE.

(Zonaras and Balsamon prefix to the canons this note.)

The Synod gathered together at Neocaesares, which is a city of Pontus, is
next in order after that of Ancyra, and earlier in date than the rest, even
than the First Ecumenical Synod at Nice. In this synod the Holy Fathers
gathered together, among whom was the holy Martyr Basil, bishop of
Amasea, adopted canons for the establishing of ecclesiastical order as
follow-

THE CANONS OF THE HOLY AND BLESSED FATHERS WHO

ASSEMBLED AT NEOCAESAREA, WHICH ARE INDEED LATER

IN DATE THAN THOSE MADE AT ANCYRA, BUT MORE

ANCffiNT THAN THE NICENE: HOWEVER, THE SYNOD OF

NICE HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THEM ON ACCOUNT OF ITS

PECULIAR DIGNITY.

(Annotations by Routh, and reprint of the Notes of Christopher Justellus
and of Bp. Beveridge will be found in Vol. 4:of the Reliquioe Sacroe.)

228

CANON I

If a presbyter marry, let him be removed from his order; but if he commit
fornication or adultery, let him be altogether east out [i.e. of communion]
and put to penance.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

If a presbyter marries he shall be deposed from his order. If he commits
adultery or whoredom he shall be expelled, and shall be put to penance.

ARISTENUS.

A presbyter who marries is removed from the exercise of the priesthood
but retains his honor and seat. But he that commits fornication or adultery
is cast forth altogether and put to penance.

VAN ESPEN

These fathers [i.e. of Neocaesarea] shew how much graver seemed to them
the sin of the presbyter who after ordination committed fornication or
adultery, than his who took a wife. For the former they declare shall
simply be deposed from his order or deprived of the dignity of the
Priesthood, but the latter is to "be altogether cast out, and put to
penance."... Therefore such a presbyter not only did they remove from the

229

priestly functions, or the dignity of the priesthood, but perfectly or
altogether east him out of the Church.

This canon Gratian has inserted in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum.
Pars I., Dist. xxviii., c. 9:Gratian has followed Isidore in adding after the
word "penance" the words "among the laity" (inter laicos) which do not
occur in the Greek, (as is noted by the Roman Correctors) nor in the
version of Dionysius Exiguus; these same correctors fall however
themselves into a still graver error in supposing that criminous clerks in
the early days of the Church were sent out to wander over the country, as
Van Espen well points out.

On the whole subject of the marriage of the clergy in the Early Church see
the Excursus devoted to that subject.

230

CANON II

If a woman shall have married two brothers, let her be east out [i.e. of
communion] until her death. Nevertheless, at the hour of death she may, as
an act of mercy, be received to penance, provided she declare that she will
break the marriage, should she recover. But if the woman in such a
marriage, or the man, die, penance for the survivor shall be very difficult.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

A woman married to two brothers shall be expelled all her life. But if when
near her death she promises that she will loose the marriage should she
recover, she shall be admitted to penance. But if one of those coupled
together die, only with great difficulty shall penitence be allowed to the one
still living.

It will be carefully observed that this canon has no provision for the case
of a man marrying two sisters. It is the prohibited degree of brother's wife,
not that of wife's sister which is in consideration. Of course those who
hold that the affinity is the same in each case will argue from this canon by
parity of reasoning, and those who do not accept that position will refuse
to do so.

In the Greek text of Balsamon (Vide Beveridge, Synod.) after the first
clause is added, "if she will not be persuaded to loose the marriage."

VAN ESPEN

231

The meaning of this canon seems to be that which Balsamon sets forth, to
wit, that if a woman at the point of death or in extremis promises that if
she gets better she will dissolve the marriage, or make a divorce, or abstain
from the sacrilegious use of matrimony, then "she may be received to
penance as an act of mercy"; and surely she is immediately absolved from
the excommunication inflicted upon her when she was cast out and
extruded from the Church. For it is certain that according to the discipline
of the Fathers he was thought to be loosed from excommunication
whoever was admitted to penance, and it is of this that the canon speaks;
but he did not obtain perfect reconciliation until his penance was done.

To this performance of penance this woman was to be admitted if she got
well and dissolved the marriage according to her promise made when she
was in peril of death, as the Greek commentators note; and this too is the
sense given by Isidore.

232

CANON III

Concerning those who fall into many marriages, the appointed time of
penance is well known; but their manner of living and faith shortens the
time.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

The time ofpolygamists is well known. A zeal for penance may shorten it.

HEFELE

As the Greek commentators have remarked, this canon speaks of those
who have been married more than twice. It is not known what were the
ancient ordinances of penitence which the synod here refers to. In later
times digamists were condemned to one year's penance, and trigamists
from two to five years. St. Basil places the trigamists for three years
among the "hearers," and then for some time among the consistentes.

VAN ESPEN

"The appointed time of penance is well known." These words Zonaras
notes must refer to a custom, for, says he, "before this synod no canon is
found which prescribes the duration of the penance of bigamists [i.e.
digamists]." It is for this reason that St. Basil says (in Epist. ad
Amphilogium, Can. 4) in speaking of the penance of trigamists "we have
received this by custom and not by canon, but from the following of

233

precedent," hence the Fathers received many things by tradition, and
observed these as having the force of law.

From the last clause of this canon we see the mind of the Fathers of this
synod, which agrees with that of Ancyra and Nice, that; with regard to the
granting of indulgences, for in shortening the time of penance, attention
must be paid to the penitence, and conversation, or "conversation and
faith" of each one separately.

With this agrees Zonaras, whose remarks are worthy of consideration. On
this whole subject of the commutation of the primitive penance and of the
rise of the modern indulgences of the Roman Church Van Espen has
written at length in his excursus De Indulgentiis {Jure Eccles., P. I. L, Tit.
vij.) in which he assigns the change to the end of the Xlth century, and
remarks that its introduction caused the "no small collapse of penitential
discipline."

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian, Decretum, Pars
II., Causa xxxi., Quaest. i., c. viij. where for "conversio," (ocvocoTpocpri) is
read "conversatio," and the Greek word is used in this sense in Polybius,
and frequently so in the New Testament.

234

CANON 4.

If any man lusting after a woman purposes to lie with her, and his design
does not come to effect, it is evident that he has been saved by grace.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

Whoso lusteth but doth not accomplish his pleasure is preserved of God.

HEFELE

Instead of £7ti9D|xf|aoci we must read, with Beveridge and Routh, who
rely upon several MSS., erciGiiuTiGoct; They also replace u.eT ottnf|<; by
ocuxfi.

The meaning of the canon appears to me to be very obscure. Hefele refers
to Van Espen and adopts his view, and Van Espen in turn has adopted
Fleury's view and given him credit for it, referring to his Histoire
Ecclesiastique, Lib. X., xvij. Zonaras' and Balsamon's notes are almost
identical, I translate that of the latter in full.

BALSAMON

In sins, the Fathers say, there are four stages, the first-motion, the
struggle, the consent, and the act: the first two of these are not subject to
punishment, but in the two others the case is different. For neither is the
first impression nor the struggle against it to be condemned, provided that

235

when the reason receives the impression it struggles with it and rejects the
thought. But the consent thereto is subject to condemnation and
accusation, and the action to punishment. If therefore anyone is assailed
by the lust for a woman, and is overcome so that he would perform the act
with her, he has given consent, indeed, but to the work he has not come,
that is, he has not performed the act, and it is manifest that the grace of
God has preserved him; but he shall not go off with impunity. For the
consent alone is worthy of punishment. And this is plain from canon 70:of
St. Basil, which says; "A deacon polluted in lips (ev %eiAeoi)" or who
has approached to the kiss of a woman "and confesses that he has so
sinned, is to be interdicted his ministry," that is to say is to be prohibited
its exercise for a time. "But he shall not be deemed unworthy to
communicate in sacris with the deacons. The same is also the case with a
presbyter. But if anyone shall go any further in sin than this, no matter
what his grade, he shall be deposed." Some, however, interpret the
pollution of the lips in another way; of this I shall speak in commenting on
Canon 70:of St. Basil.

236

CANON V

If catechumen coming into the Church have taken his place in the order of
catechumens, and fall into six, let him, if a kneeler, become a hearer and sin
no more. But should he again sin while a hearer, let him be cast out.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

If a catechumen falls into a fault and if while a kneeler he sins no more, let
him be among the hearers; but should he sin while among the hearers, let
him be cast out altogether.

ZONARAS

There are two sorts of catechumens. For some have only just come in and
these, as still imperfect, go out immediately after the reading of the
scriptures and of the Gospels. But there are others who have been for
some time in preparation and have attained some perfection; these wait
after the Gospel for the prayers for the catechumens, and when they hear
the words "Catechumens, bow down your heads to the Lord," they kneel
down. These, as being more perfect, having tasted the good words of God,
if they fall, are removed from their position; and are placed with the
"hearers"; but if any happen to sin while "hearers" they are east out of the
Church altogether.

237

CANON VI.

Concerning a woman with child, it is determined that she ought to be
baptized whensoever she will; for in this the woman communicates
nothing to the child, since the bringing forward to profession is evidently
the individual [privilege] of every single person.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

If a woman with child so desires, let her be baptized. For the choice of each
one is judged of.

VAN ESPEN

That the reason of the canon may be understood it must be noted that in
the first ages of the Church catechumens were examined concerning their
faith before they were baptized, and were made publicly to confess their
faith and to renounce openly the pomps of the world, as Albaspinaeus
(Aubespine) observes on this canon, "A short while before they were
immersed they declared with a loud voice that they desired baptism and
wished to be baptized. And since these confessions could not be made by
those still shut up in their parent's womb, to them the thing (res) and
grace of baptism could not come nor penetrate." And altogether in accord
with this is the translation of Isidore — "because the free will of each one
is declared in that confession," that is, in that confession he declares that
he willingly desires to be baptized.

238

CANON VII

A Presbyter shall not be a guest at the nuptials of persons contracting a
second marriage; for, since the digamist is worthy of penance, what kind of
a presbyter shall he be, who, by being present at the feast, sanctioned the
marriage?

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

A presbyter ought not to be present at the marriage of digamists. For when
that one implores favor, who will deem him worthy of favor.

HEFELE

The meaning of the canon is as follows: "If the digamist, after contracting
his second marriage, comes to the priest to be told the punishment he has
to undergo, how stands the priest himself who for the sake of the feast has
become his accomplice in the offense?"

VAN ESPEN

The present canon again shews that although the Church never
disapproved of, nor reputed second or still later marriages illicit,
nevertheless the Fathers enjoined a penance upon digamists and those
repeating marriage, because by this iteration they shewed their
incontinence. As he that contracted a second marriage did not sin properly
speaking, and committed no fault worthy of punishment, therefore

239

whatever was amiss was believed to be paid off by a lighter penance, and
Zonaras supposes that the canons inflicted a mulct upon digamists, for
saith he, "Digamists are not allowed for one year to receive the Holy
Gifts."

Zonaras seems to indicate that the discipline of the canon was not in force
in his time, for he says, "Although this is found in our writings, yet we
ourselves have seen the Patriarch and many Metropolitans present at the
feast for the second nuptials of the Emperor."

240

CANON vm

IF the wife of a layman has committed adultery and been clearly
convicted, such [a husband] cannot enter the ministry; and if she commit
adultery after his ordination, he must put her away; but if he retain her, he
can have no part in the ministry committed to him. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

A layman whose wife is an adulteress cannot be a clergyman, and a cleric
who keeps an adulteress shall be expelled.

VAN ESPEN

Although the Eastern Church allows the clergy to have wives, even
priests, and permits to them the use of marriage after ordination,
nevertheless it requires of them the highest conjugal continency, as is seen
by the present canon. For here it is evident that the Fathers wished even
the smallest possible kind of incontinence to be absent from men dedicated
to holiness.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxxiv., c. xi.

241

CANON IX

A Presbyter who has been promoted after having committed carnal sin,
and who shall confess that he had sinned before his ordination, shall not
make the oblation, though he may remain in his other functions on account
of his zeal in other respects; for the majority have affirmed that ordination
blots out other kinds of sins. But if he do not confess and cannot be
openly convicted, the decision shall depend upon himself.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

If a presbyter confess that he has sinned, let him abstain from the oblation,
and from it only. For certain sins orders remit. If he neither confess nor is
convicted, let him have power over himself.

VAN ESPEN

Therefore if he who before his ordination had committed a sin of the flesh
with a woman, confess it after ordination, when he is already a priest, he
cannot perform the priestly office, he can neither offer nor consecrate the
oblations, even though after his ordination he has preserved uprightness of
living and been careful to exercise virtue; as the words "zeal in other
respects" ("studious of good") Zonaras rightly interprets.

And since here the consideration is of a sin committed before ordination,
and also concerning a presbyter who after his ordination was of spotless
life, and careful to exercise virtue, the Fathers rightly wished that he
should not, against his will, be deposed from the priestly office.

242

It is certainly curious that this canon speaks of ordination as in the
opinion of most persons taking away all sins except consummated carnal
offenses. And it will be noted that the occpievoci must mean more than that
they are forgiven by ordination, for they had been forgiven long ago by
God upon true contrition, but that they were made to be non-existent, as if
they had never been, so that flier were no hindrance to the exercise of the
spiritual office. I offer no explanation of the difficulty and only venture to
doubt the satisfactory character of any of the explanations given by the
commentators. Moreover it is hard to grasp the logical connection of the
clauses, and what this "blotting out" of xoc Xonta has to do with the
matter I entirely fail to see. The kou after noWoi may possibly suggest
that something has dropped out.

This canon and the following are together in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa xv., Quaest. viii., c. i.

243

CANON X

Likewise, if a deacon have fallen into the same sin, let him have the rank
of a minister.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

A deacon found in the same crime shall remain a minister ("UTtripeTrif;).

HEFELE

By ministers (t>7tr|p£Tcu) are meant inferior officers of the Church — the
so-called minor orders, often including the subdeacons. This canon is in the
Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa xv., Quaest.
viii., united with canon ix., and in the following curious form: "Similiter et
diaconus, si in eodem culpae genere fuerit involutus, sese a ministerio
cohibebit."

244

CANON XI

Let not a presbyter be ordained before he is thirty years of age, even
though he be in all respects a worthy man, but let him be made to wait.
For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach in his thirtieth
year.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

Unless he be 30 years of age none shall be presbyter, even should he be
worthy, following the example of the baptism of our Savior.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. lxxviii., c. iv.

GRATIAN.

(Ut supra, Nota.)

This is the law, and we do not read that Christ, or John the Baptist, or
Ezechiel, or some other of the Prophets prophesied or preached before
that age. But Jeremiah and Daniel we read received the spirit of prophecy
before they had arrived even at youth, and David and Solomon are found
to have been anointed in their youth, also John the Evangelist, while still a
youth, was chosen by the Lord for an Apostle, and we find that with the
rest he was sent forth to preach: Paul also, as we know, while still a young
man was called by the Lord, and was sent out to preach. The Church in
like manner, when necessity compels, is wont to ordain some under thirty
years of age.

245

For this reason Pope Zacharias in his Letter to Boniface the Bishop,
number vi., which begins "Benedictus Deus" says,

C. v. In case of necessity presbyters may be ordained at 25 years of age.

If men thirty years old cannot be found, and necessity so demand, Levites
and priests may be ordained from twenty-five years of age upwards.

VAN ESPEN

The power of dispensing was committed to the bishop, and at length it
was so frequently exercised that in the space of one century [i.e. by the
end of the 12th century] the law became abrogated, which was brought
about by necessity, so that it passed into law that a presbyter could be
ordained at twenty-five. And from this it may appear how true it is that
there is no surer way of destroying discipline and abrogating law than the
allowing of dispensations and relaxations. Vide Thomassinus, De Disc.
Eccles., Pars. IV., Lib. I., cap. 46.

246

CANON XII

If any one be baptized when he is ill, forasmuch as his [profession of]
faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. though fear of death] he
cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his
subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

One baptized on account of sickness is not to be made presbyter, unless in
reward for a contest which he afterwards sustains and on account of
scarcity of men.

The word used in the Greek for "baptized" is "illuminated" (cpcoTioGri) a
very common expression among the ancients.

ARISTENUS.

He that is baptized by reason of illness, and, therefore come to his
illumination not freely but of necessity, shall not be admitted to the
priesthood unless both these conditions concur, that there are few suitable
men to be found and that he has endured a hard conflict after his baptism.
With this interpretation agree also Zonaras and Balsamon, the latter
expressly saying, "If one of these conditions is lacking, the canon must be
observed." Not only has Isidore therefore missed the meaning by changing
the copulative into the disjunctive conjunction (as Van Espen points out)
but Beveridge has fallen into the same error, not indeed in the canon itself,
but in translating the Ancient Epitome.

247

Zonaras explains that the reason for this prohibition was the well-known
fact that in those ages baptism was put off so as the longer to be free from
the restraints which baptism was considered to impose. From this
interpretation only Aubespine dissents, and Hefele points out how
entirely without reason.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum.,
Pars. I., Dist. ML, c. i.

248

CANON xm

Country presbyters may not make the oblation in the church of the city
when the bishop or presbyters of the city are present; nor may they give
the Bread or the Cup with prayer. If, however, they be absent, and he [i.e.,
a country presbyter] alone be called to prayer, he may give them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XHI. AND XIV

A country presbyter shall not offer in the city temple, unless the bishop and
the whole body of the presbyters are away. But if wanted he can do so white
they are away. The chorepiscopi can offer as fellow ministers, as they hold
the place of the Seventy.

Routh reads the last clause in the plural, in this agreeing with Dionysius
Exiguus and Isidore. In many MSS. this canon is united with the following
and the whole number given as 14.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars I., Diet, xcv., c. 12.
And the Roman correctors have added the following notes.

ROMAN CORRECTORS.

(Gratian ut supra.)

"Nor to give the sacrificed bread and to hand the chalice;" otherwise it is
read "sanctified" [sanctificatum for sacrificatum]. The Greek of the council
is ocpTov SiSovoci ev e-uxfi but Balsamon has ocpTov ei)%f|<; that is, "the
bread of the mystic prayer."

249

Instead of "let them only who are called for giving the prayer, etc.," read
Koci ei<; ei)%r|v KXn9f| u.6vo<; SiScoaiv that is: "and only he that shall
have been called to the mystic prayer, shall distribute."

250

CANON xrv

The chorepiscopi, however, are indeed after the pattern of the Seventy;
and as fellow- servants, on account of their devotion to the poor, they have
the honor of making the oblation.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

[Vide ante, as in many MSS. the two canons are united in the Ancient
Epitome.]

VAN ESPEN

The reference to the Seventy seems to intimate that the Synod did not
hold the chorepiscopi to be true bishops, as such were always reputed and
called successors, not of the Seventy disciples but successors of the
Twelve Apostles. It is also clear that their chief ministry was thought to
be the care of the poor.

Zonaras and Balsamon would seem to agree in this with Van Espen. See on
the whole subject the Excursus on the Chorepiscopi.

251

CANON XV.

The deacons ought to be seven in number, according to the canon, even if
the city be great. Of this you will be persuaded from the Book of the Acts.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Seven Deacons according to the Acts of the Apostles should be appointed
for each great city.

This canon was observed in Rome and it was not until the xith century
that the number of the Seven Cardinal Deacons was changed to fourteen.
That Gratian received it into the Decretum (Pars. I., Dist. XCIIL, c. xij.) is
good evidence that he considered it part of the Roman discipline. Eusebius
gives a letter of Pope Cornelius, written about the middle of the third
century, which says that at that time there were at Rome forty-four
priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons; and that the number of
those in inferior orders was very great. Thomassinus says that, "no doubt
in this the Roman Church intended to imitate the Apostles who only
ordained seven deacons. But the other Churches did not keep themselves
so scrupulously to that number."

In the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is noted that the Church of
Edessa had fifteen priests and thirty-eight deacons. And Justinian, we
know, appointed one hundred deacons for the Church of Constantinople.
Van Espen well points out that while this canon refers to a previous law
on the subject, neither the Council itself, nor the Greek commentators
Balsamon or Zonaras give the least hint as to what that Canon was.

The Fathers of Neocaesarea base their limiting of the number of deacons to
seven in one city upon the authority of Holy Scripture, but the sixteenth

252

canon of the Quinisext Council expressly says that in doing so they
showed they referred to ministers of alms, not to ministers at the divine
mysteries, and that St. Stephen and the rest were not deacons at all in this
latter sense. The reader is referred to this canon, where to defend the
practice of Constantinople the meaning of the canon we are considering is
entirely misrepresented.

253

THE COUNCIL OF GANGRA

A.D. 325-4181.

Emperor. — CONSTANTINE.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

Synodal Letter.

Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

With regard to the Synod of Gangra we know little beside what we learn
from its own synodal letter. Three great questions naturally arise with
regard to it.

1 . What was its date?

2. Who was the Eustathius it condemned?

3. Who was its presiding officer?

I shall briefly give the reader the salient points with regard to each of these
matters.

1. With regard to the date, there can be no doubt that it was after Nice and
before the First Council of Constantinople, that is between 325 and 381.
Socrates seems to place it about 365; but Sozomen some twenty years
earlier. On the other hand, Remi Ceillier inconsistently with his other
statements, seems to argue from St. Basil's letters that the true date is later
than 376. Still another theory has been urged by the Ballerini, resting on
the supposition that the Eusebius who presided was Eusebius of Caesarea,

254

and they therefore fix the date between 362 and 370. With this Mr.
Ffoulkes agrees, and fixes the date, with Pagi, at 358, and is bold enough to
add, "and this was unquestionably the year of the Council." But in the old
collections of canons almost without exception, the canons of Gangra
precede those of Antioch, and Blondel and Tillemont have sustained this,
which perhaps I may call the traditional date.

2. There does not seem to be any reasonable ground to doubt that the
person condemned, Eustathius by name, was the famous bishop of
Sebaste. This may be gathered from both Sozomen and Socrates, and is
confirmed incidentally by one of St. Basil's epistles, Moreover,
Eustathius' s See of Sebaste is in Armenia, and it is to the bishops of
Armenia that the Synod addresses its letter. It would seem in view of all
this that Bp. Hefele's words are not too severe when he writes, "Under
such circumstances the statement of Baronius, Du Pin, and others
(supported by no single ancient testimony) that another Eustathius, or
possibly the monk Eutactus, is here meant, deserves no serious
consideration, though Tillemont did not express himself as opposed to it"

The story that after his condemnation by the Synod of Gangra Eustathius
gave up wearing his peculiar garb and other eccentricities, Sozomen only
gives as a report.

3. As to who was the president, it seems tolerably certain that his name
was Eusebius — if Sozomen indeed means it was "Eusebius of
Constantinople," it is a blunder, yet he had the name right. In the heading
of the Synodal letter Eusebius is first named, and as Gangra and Armenia
were within the jurisdiction of Caesarea, it certainly would seem natural to
suppose that the Eusebius named was the Metropolitan of that province,
but it must be remembered that Eusebius of Cappadocia was not made
bishop until 362, four years after Mr. Ffoulkes makes him preside at
Gangra. The names of thirteen bishops are given in the Greek text.

The Latin translations add other names, such as that of Hosius of
Cordova, and some Latin writers have asserted that he presided as legate
latere from the pope, e.g., Baronius and Binius. Hefele denies this and
says: "At the time of the Synod of Gangra Hosius was without doubt
dead." But such has not been the opinion of the learned, and Cave is of
opinion that Hosius' s episcopate covered seventy years ending with 361,

255

and (resting on the same opinion) Pagi thinks Hosius may have attended
the Synod in 358 on his way back to Spain, an opinion with which, as I
have said, Mr. Ffoulkes agrees. It seems also clear that by the beginning of
the sixth century the Synod of Gangra was looked upon at Rome as having
been held under papal authority; Pope Symmachus expressly saying so to
the Roman Synod of 504. (Vide Notes on Canons vii and viii.)

It remains only further to remark that the Libellus Synodicus mentions a
certain Dius as president of the Synod. The Ballarini suggest that it should
be Bio<; an abbreviation of Eusebius. Mr. Ffoulkes suggests that Dius is
"probably Dianius, the predecessor of Eusebius." Lightfoot fixes the
episcopate of Eusebius Pumphili as between 313 and 337; and states that
that of Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia did not begin until 362, so that
the enormous chronological difficulties will be evident to the reader.

As all the proposed new dates involve more or less contradiction, I have
given the canons their usual position between Neocaesarea and Antioch,
and have left the date undetermined.

SYNODICAL LETTER OF THE COUNCIL OF GANGRA.

Eusebius, Aelian, Eugenius, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus,
Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proaeresius, Basil and Bassus, assembled in
the holy Synod at Gangra, to our most honored lords and fellow-ministers
in Armenia wish health in the Lord.

Fo r a s m u c h as the most Holy Synod of Bishops, assembled on account of
certain necessary matters of ecclesiastical business in the Church at
Gangra, on inquiring also into the matters which concern Eustathius, found
that many things had been unlawfully done by these very men who are
partisans of Eustathius, it was compelled to make definitions, which it has
hastened to make known to all, for the removal of whatever has by him
been done amiss. For, from their utter abhorrence of marriage, and from
their adoption of the proposition that no one living in a state of marriage
has any hope towards God, many misguided married women have
forsaken their husbands, and husbands their wives: then, afterwards, not

256

being able to contain, they have fallen into adultery; and so, through such a
principle as this, have come to shame. They were found, moreover,
fomenting separations from the houses of God and of the Church; treating
the Church and its members with disdain, and establishing separate
meetings and assemblies, and different doctrines and other things in
opposition to the Churches and those things which are done in the Church;
wearing strange apparel, to the destruction of the common custom of
dress; making distributions, among themselves and their adherents as
saints, of the first-fruits of the Church, which have, from the first, been
given to the Church; slaves also leaving their masters, and, on account of
their own strange apparel, acting insolently towards their masters; women,
too, disregarding decent custom, and, instead of womanly apparel, wearing
men's clothes, thinking to be justified because of these; while many of
them, under a pretext of piety, cut off the growth of hair, which is natural
to woman; [and these persons were found] fasting on the Lord's Day,
despising the sacredness of that free day, but disdaining and eating on the
fasts appointed in the Church; and certain of them abhor the eating of
flesh; neither do they tolerate prayers in the houses of married persons,
but, on the contrary, despise such prayers when they are made, and often
refuse to partake when Oblations are offered in the houses of married
persons; contemning married presbyters, and refusing to touch their
ministrations; condemning the services in honor of the Martyrs and those
who gather or minister therein, and the rich also who do not alienate all
their wealth, as having nothing to hope from God; and many other things
that no one could recount. For every one of them, when he forsook the
canon of the Church, adopted laws that tended as it were to isolation; for
neither was there any common judgment among all of them; but whatever
any one conceived, that he propounded, to the scandal of the Church, and
to his own destruction.

Wherefore, the Holy Synod present in Gangra was compelled, on these
accounts, to condemn them, and to set forth definitions declaring them to
be cast out of the Church; but that, if they should repent and anathematize
every one of these false doctrines, then they should be capable of
restoration. And therefore the Holy Synod has particularly set forth
everything which they ought to anathematize before they are received.
And if any one will not submit to the said decrees, he shall be

257

anathematized as a heretic, and excommunicated, and cast out of the
Church; and it will behoove the bishops to observe a like rule in respect of
all who may be found with them.

THE CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED AT
GANGRA, WHICH WERE SET FORTH AFTER THE COUNCIL OF

NICE.

CANON I

If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman
who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though
she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

Anathema to him who disregards legitimate marriage.

When one considers how deeply the early church was impressed with
those passages of Holy Scripture which she understood to set forth the
superiority of the virgin over the married estate, it ceases to be any source
of astonishment that some should have run into the error of condemning
marriage as sinful. The saying of our Blessed Lord with reference to those
who had become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," and those
words of St. Paul "He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he
that giveth her not in marriage doeth better," together with the striking
passage in the Revelation of those that were "not defiled with women for
they are virgins," were considered as settling the matter for the new

258

dispensation. The earliest writers are filled with the praises of virginity.
Its superiority underlies the allegories of the Hermes Pastor; St. Justin
Martyr speaks of "many men and women of sixty and seventy years of
age who from their childhood have been the disciples of Christ, and have
kept themselves uncorrupted," and from that time on there is an
ever-swelling tide of praise; the reader must be referred to SS. Cyprian,
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. In fact the
Council of Trent (it cannot be denied) only gave expression to the view of
all Christian antiquity both East and West, when it condemned those who
denied that "it is more blessed to remain virgin or celibate than to be joined
in marriage."

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Distinc. xxx., c. 12: (Isidore's version), and again Dist. xxxi., c. 8:
(Dionysius's version). Gratian, however, supposes that the canon is
directed against the Manichaeans and refers to the marriage of priests, but
in both matters he is mistaken, as the Roman Correctors and Van Espen
point out.

259

CANON II

If any one shall condemn him who eats flesh, which is without blood and
has not been offered to idols nor strangled, and is faithful and devout, as
though the man were without hope [of salvation] because of his eating, let
him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

Anathema also to him who condemns the eating of flesh, except that of a
suffocated animal or that offered to idols.

HEFELE

This canon also, like the preceding one, is not directed against the Gnostics
and Manicheans, but against an unenlightened hyper-asceticism, which
certainly approaches the Ghostic-Manichean error as to matter being
Satanic. We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of
the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in
force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their
Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on
the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third
Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to
observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this
subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra
Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in
order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then,
when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this

260

command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and
was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope
Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled
under threat of a penance of forty days.

No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even
though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater
and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the
Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete
for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of
only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuser, like other laws.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XXX., c. xiii.

261

CANON III

If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master
and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with
goodwill and all honor, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under
pretense of religion.

VAN ESPEN

This canon is framed in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, in I.
Timothy, chapter six, verse 1. "Let as many servants as are under the
yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God
and his doctrine be not blasphemed." And again the same Apostle teaches
his disciple Titus that he should "exhort servants to be obedient unto their
own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the
doctrine of God our Savior in all things." (Titus 2:9 and 10.)

These texts are likewise cited by Balsamon and Zonaras.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars. II., Causa XVIL, Q. IV., c. xxxvij. in the version of Isidore, and again
in c. xxxviij. from the collections of Martin Bracarensis (so says Van
Espen) and assigned to a council of Pope Martin, Canon xlvii.

262

CANON IV

If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not
lawful to partake of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

Anathema to him who hesitates to receive communion from presbyters
joined in matrimony.

HEFELE

As is well known, the ancient Church, as now the Greek Church, allowed
those clergy who married before their ordination to continue to live in
matrimony. Compare what was said above in the history of the Council of
Nicaea, in connection with Paphnutius, concerning the celibacy and
marriage of priests in the ancient Church. Accordingly this canon speaks
of those clergy who have wives and live in wedlock; and Baronius, Binius,
and Mitter-Muller gave themselves useless trouble in trying to interpret it
as only protecting those clergy who, though married, have since their
ordination ceased to cohabit with their wives.

The so-called Codex Ecclesioe Romanoe published by Quesnel, which,
however, as was shown by the Ballerini, is of Gallican and not Roman
origin, has not this canon, and consequently it only mentions nineteen
canons of Gangra.

263

CANON V

IF any one shall teach that the house of God and the assemblies held
therein are to be despised, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Whoso styles the house of God contemptible, let him be anathema.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., ex. The commentators find nothing to say upon the
canon, and in fact the despising of the worship of God's true church is and
always has been so common a sin, that it hardly calls for comment; no one
will forget that the Prophet Malachi complains how in his days there were
those who deemed "the table of the Lord contemptible" and said of his
worship "what a weariness is it." (Malachi 1:7 and 13.)

264

CANON VI

If any one shall hold private assemblies outside of the Church, and,
despising the canons, shall presume to perform ecclesiastical acts, the
presbyter with the consent of the bishop refusing his permission, let him
be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

Whoso privately gathers a religious meeting let him be anathema.

HEFELE

Both these canons, [V. and VI.] forbid the existence of conventicles, and
conventicle services. It already appears from the second article of the
Synodal Letter of Gangra, that the Eustathians, through spiritual pride,
separated themselves from the rest of the congregation, as being the pure
and holy, avoided the public worship, and held private services of their
own. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh articles of the Synodal Letter give us
to understand that the Eustathians especially avoided the public services,
when married clergy officiated. We might possibly conclude, from the
words of the sixth canon: \ir\ ov\6\zoq xcu npeofivTepov Kara yvc6(j,r|v
zov kmoKonov that no priest performed any part in their private
services; but it is more probable that the Eustathians, who did not reject
the priesthood as such, but only abhorred the married clergy, had their
own unmarried clergy, and that these officiated at their separate services.
And the above-mentioned words of the canon do not the least contradict
this supposition, for the very addition of the words Kara yva)(xr|v xov

265

kmoKonov indicate that the sectarian priests who performed the services
of the Eustathians had received no permission to do so from the bishop of
the place. Thus did the Greek commentators, Balsamon, etc., and likewise
Van Espen, interpret this canon.

The meaning of this canon is very obscure. The Latin reads non
conveniente presbytero, de episcopi sententia; and Lambert translates
"without the presence of a priest, with consent of the bishop." Hammond
differs from this and renders thus, "without the concurrence of the
presbyter and the consent of the bishop." I have translated literally and
left the obscurity of the original.

266

CANON VII.

If any one shall presume to take the fruits offered to the Church, or to give
them out of the Church, without the consent of the bishop, or of the
person charged with such things, and shall refuse to act according to his
judgment, let him be anathema.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

Whoso performs church acts contrary to the will of a bishop or of a
presbyter, let him be anathema.

267

CANON vm

If anyone, except the bishop or the person appointed for the stewardship
of benefactions, shall either give or receive the revenue, let both the giver
and the receiver be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Whoso gives or receives offered fruits, except the bishop and the economist
appointed to disburse charities, both he that gives, and he that receives
shall be anathema.

POPE SYMMACHUS.

{In his Address to the Synod of Rome 504. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia,
torn, iv., col. 1373.)

In the canons framed by Apostolic authority [i.e., by the authority of the
Apostolic See of Rome, cf. Ffoulkes, Smith and Cheetham, Diet. Christ.
Antiq., art. Gangra] we find it written as follows concerning the offerings
of fruits which are due to the clergy of the church, and concerning those
things which are offered for the use of the poor; "If anyone shall presume,
etc." [Canon VII.] And again at the same council, "If anyone except the
bishop, etc." [Canon VIIL] And truly it is a crime and a great sacrilege for
those whose duty it is chiefly to guard it, that is for Christians and
God-fearing men and above all for princes and rulers of this world, to
transfer and convert to other uses the wealth which has been bestowed or
left by will to the venerable Church for the remedy of their sins, or for the
health and repose of their souls.

268

Moreover, whosoever shall have no care for these, and contrary to these
canons, shall seek for, accept, or hold, or shall unjustly defend and retain
the treasures given to the Church unless he quickly repent himself shall be
stricken with that anathema with which an angry God smites souls; and to
him that accepts, or gives, or possesses let there be anathema, and the
constant accompaniment of the appointed penalty. For he can have no
defense to offer before the tribunal of Christ, who nefariously without any
regard to religion has scattered the substance left by pious souls for the
poor.

269

CANON IX

If any one shall remain virgin, or observe continence, abstaining from
marriage because he abhors it, and not on account of the beauty and
holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Whoso preserves virginity not on account of its beauty but because he
abhors marriage, let him be anathema.

The lesson taught by this canon and that which follows is that the practice
of even the highest Christian virtues, such as the preservation of virginity,
if it does not spring from a worthy motive is only deserving of execration.

ZONARAS

Virginity is most beautiful of all, and continence is likewise beautiful, but
only if we follow them for their own sake and because of the sanctification
which comes from them. But should anyone embrace virginity, because he
detests marriage as impure, and keep himself chaste, and abstains from
commerce with women and marriage, because he thinks that they are in
themselves wicked, he is subjected by this canon to the penalty of
anathema.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. v., and again Dist. xxxi., c. ix.

270

CANON X

If any one of those who are living a virgin life for the Lord's sake shall
treat arrogantly the married, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

Whoso treats arrogantly those joined in matrimony, let him be anathema.
On this point the fathers had spoken long before, I cite two as examples.

ST. CLEMENT.

(Epist. I., 38, Lightfoot's translation.)

So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each
man be subject unto his neighbor, according as also he was appointed with
his special grace. Let not the strong neglect the weak; and let the weak
respect the strong. Let the rich rain-later aid to the poor and let the poor
give; thanks to God, because he hath given him one through whom his
wants may be supplied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words,
but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to
himself, but leave testimony to be born to him by his neighbor. He that is
pure in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another
who bestoweth his continence upon him. Let us consider, brethren, of
what matter we were made; who and what manner of beings we were,
when we came into the world; from what a sepulcher and what darkness
he that molded and created us brought us into his world, having prepared
his benefits aforehand ere ever we were born. Seeing therefore that we have

271

all these things from him, we ought in all things to give thanks to him, to
whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

ST. IGNATIUS.

(Epist. ad Polyc. 5, Lightfoot's translation.)

Flee evil arts, or rather hold thou discourse about these, Tell my sisters to
love the Lord and to be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit.
In like manner also charge my brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to love
their wives, as the Lord loved the Church. If anyone is able to abide in
chastity to the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him so abide without
boasting. If he boast, he is lost; and if it be known beyond the bishop, he
is polluted. It becometh men and women, too, when they marry to unite
themselves with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after
the Lord and not after concupiscence. Let all things be done to the honor
of God.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XXX., c. iv.

272

CANON XI

If anyone shall despise those who out of faith make love-feasts and invite
the brethren in honor of the Lord, and is not willing to accept these
invitations because he despises what is done, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

Whoso spurns those who invite to the agape, and who when invited will not
communicate with these, let him be anathema.

There are few subjects upon which there has been more difference of
opinion than upon the history and significance of the Agape or
Love-feasts of the Early Church. To cite here any writers would only
mislead the reader, I shall therefore merely state the main outline of the
discussion and leave every man to study the matter for himself.

All agree that these feasts are referred to by St. Jude in his Epistle, and,
although Dean Plumptre has denied it (Smith and Cheetham, Diet., Christ.
Antiq., S.V. Agapae), most writers add St. Paul in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians 1 LEstius (in loc.) argues with great cogency that the
expression "Lord's Supper" in Holy Scripture never means the Holy
Eucharist, but the love-feast, and in this view he has been followed by
many moderns, but the prevalent opinion has been the opposite.

There is also much discussion as to the order in which the Agapae and the
celebrations of the Holy Sacrament were related, some holding that the
love-feast preceded others that it followed the Divine Mysteries. There
seems no doubt that in early times the two became separated, the Holy
Sacrament being celebrated in the morning and the Agapae in the evening.

273

All agree that these feasts were at first copies of the religious feasts
common to the Jews and to the heathen world, and that soon abuses of
one sort or another came in, so that they fell into ill repute and were
finally prohibited at the Council in Trullo. This canon of Gangra is found
in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xlii., c. i.

Van Espen is of opinion that the agapae of our canon have no real
connection with the religious feasts of earlier days, but were merely meals
provided by the rich for the poor, and with this view Hefele agrees. But
the matter is by no means plain. In fact at every point we are met with
difficulties and uncertainties.

There would seem to be little doubt that the "pain beni" of the French
Church, and the "Antidoron" of the Eastern Church are remains of the
ancient Agapae.

The meaning, however, of this canon is plain enough, to wit, people must
not despise, out of a false asceticism, feasts made for the poor by those of
the faithful who are rich and liberal.

274

CANON XII

If any one, under pretense of asceticism, should wear aperiboloeum and,
as if this gave him righteousness, shall despise those who with piety wear
the berus and use other common and customary dress, let him be
anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

Whoso despises those who wear beruses, let him be anathema.

HEFELE

The (3r|poi (lacernoe) were the common upper garments worn by men over
the tunic; but the 7tepip6^ocioc were rough mantles worn by philosophers
to show their contempt for all luxury. Socrates (H. E., 2:43) and the
Synodal Letter of Gangra in its third article say that Eustathius of Sebaste
wore the philosopher's mantle. But this canon in no way absolutely
rejects a special dress for monks, for it is not the distinctive dress but the
proud and superstitious over-estimation of its worth which the Synod
here blames.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XXX., c. XV.

275

CANON xm

If any woman, under pretense of asceticism, shall change her apparel and,
instead of a woman's accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, let
her be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

Whatever women wear men 's clothes, anathema to them.

HEFELE

The synodal letter in its sixth article also speaks of this. Exchange of dress,
or the adoption by one sex of the dress of the other, was forbidden in the
Pentateuch (Dueteronomy 22:5), and was therefore most strictly
interdicted by the whole ancient Church. Such change of attire was
formerly adopted mainly for theatrical purposes, or from effeminacy,
wantonness, the furtherance of unchastity, or the like. The Eustathians,
from quite opposite and hyper-ascetical reasons, had recommended
women to assume male, that is probably monk's attire, in order to show
that for them, as the holy ones, there was no longer any distinction of sex;
but the Church, also from ascetical reasons, forbade this change of attire,
especially when joined to superstition and puritanical pride.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. vi.

276

CANON xrv

If any woman shall forsake her husband, and resolve to depart from him
because she abhors marriage, let her be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

Women who keep away from their husbands because they abominate
marriage, anathema to them.

HEFELE

This canon cannot in any way be employed in opposition to the practice
of the Catholic Church. For though the Church allows one of a married
couple, with the consent of the other, to give up matrimonial intercourse,
and to enter the clerical order or the cloister, still this is not, as is the case
with the Eustathians, the result of a false dogmatic theory, but takes place
with a full recognition of the sanctity of marriage.

VAN ESPEN

It would seem that the Eustathians chiefly disapproved of the use of
marriage, and under pretext of preserving continence induced married
women to abstain from its use as from something unlawful, and to leave
their husbands, separating from them so far as the bed was concerned; and
so the Greek interpreters understand this canon; for the Eustathians were
never accused of persuading anyone to dissolve a marriage a vinculo.

277

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Dist, xxx., c. iii., but in Isidore's version, which misses the sense
by implying that a divorce a vinculo is intended. The Roman Correctors do
not note this error.

278

CANON XV

If anyone shall forsake his own children and shall not nurture them, nor so
far as in him lies, rear them in becoming piety, but shall neglect them,
under pretense of asceticism, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Whosoever they be that desert their children and do not instruct them in the
fear of God let them be anathema.

VAN ESPEN

The fathers of this Synod here teach that it is the office and duty of
parents to provide for the bodily care of their children, and also, as far as
in them lies, to mold them to the practice of piety. And this care for their
children is to be preferred by parents to any private exercises of religion.
In this connection should be read the letter of St. Francis de Sales. (Ep.
xxxii, Lib. 4.)

It may perhaps be noted that this canon has not infrequently been violated
by those who are accepted as Saints in the Church.

This canon is found, in Isidore's version, in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. 14.

279

CANON XVI.

If, under any pretense of piety, any children shall forsake their parents,
particularly [if the parents are] believers, and shall withhold becoming
reverence from their parents, on the plea that they honor piety more than
them, let them be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

If children leave their parents who are of the faithful let them be anathema.

Zonaras notes that the use of the word "particularly" shews that the
obligation is universal. The commentators all refer here to St. Matthew xv.,
where our Lord speaks of the subterfuge by which the Jews under pretext
of piety defrauded their parents and made the law of God of none effect.

VAN ESPEN

Of the last clause this is the meaning; that according to the Eustathians
"piety towards God" or "divine worship," or rather its pretense, should
be preferred to the honor and reverence due to parents.

This canon, in Isidore's version, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c.i. The Roman correctors advertise
the reader that the version of Dionysius Exiguus "is much nearer to the
original Greek, although not altogether so."

280

CANON XVII

If any woman from pretended asceticism shall cut off her hair, which God
gave her as the reminder of her subjection, thus annulling as it were the
ordinance of subjection, let her be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Whatever women shave their hair off, pretending to do so out of reverence
for God, let them be anathema.

HEFELE

The apostle Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 11:10, represents
the long hair of women, which is given them as a natural veil, as a token of
their subjection to man. We learn from the Synod of Gangra, that as many
Eustathian women renounced this subjection, and left their husbands, so,
as this canon says, they also did away with their long hair, which was the
outward token of this subjection. An old proverb says: duo sifaciunt
idem, non est idem. In the Catholic Church also, when women and girls
enter the cloister, they have their hair cut off, but from quite other reasons
than those of the Eustathian women. The former give up their hair,
because it has gradually become the custom to consider the long hair of
women as a special beauty, as their greatest ornament; but the Eustathians,
like the ancient Church in general, regarded long hair as the token of
subjection to the husband, and, because they renounced marriage and
forsook their husbands, they cut it off.

281

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. ij.

282

CANON xvm

If any one, under pretense of asceticism, shall fast on Sunday, let him be
anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

Whoso fasts on the Lord's day or on the Sabbath let him be anathema.

ZONARAS

Eustathius appointed the Lord's day as a fast, whereas, because Christ
rose from the grave and delivered human nature from sin on that day, we
should spend it in offering joyous thanks to God. But fasting carries with
it the idea of grief and sorrow. For this reason those who fast on Sunday
are subjected to the punishment of anathema.

BALSAMON

By many canons we are warned against fasting or grieving on the festal and
joyous Lord's day, in remembrance of the resurrection of the Lord; but
that we should celebrate it and offer thanks to God, that we be raised from
the fall of sin. But this canon smites the Eustathians with anathema
because they taught that the Lord's days should be fasted. Canon LXIV.
of the Apostolic Canons cuts off such of the laity as shall so fast, and
deposes such of the clergy. See also Canon LV. of the Council in Trullo.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. vij.

283

284

CANON XIX

If any of the ascetics, without bodily necessity, shall behave with
insolence and disregard the fasts commonly prescribed and observed by
the Church, because of his perfect understanding in the matter, let him be
anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OR CANON XIX

Whoso neglects the fasts of the Church, let him be anathema.

I have followed Hefele's translation of the last clause, with which Van
Espen seems to agree, as well as Zonaras. But Hardouin and Mansi take an
entirely different view and translate "if the Eustathian deliberately rejects
the Church fasts." Zonoras and Balsamon both refer to the LXIXth of the
Apostolical Canons as being the law the Eustathians violated. Balsamon
suggests that the Eustathians shared the error of the Bogomiles on the
subject of fasting, but I see no reason to think that this was the case,
Eustathius's action seems rather to be attributable to pride, and a desire to
be different and original, "I thank thee that I am not as other men are," (as
Van Espen points out). All that Socrates says (H. E. II., xliii.) is that "he
commanded that the prescribed fasts should be neglected, and that the
Lord's days should be fasted."

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. viii., in an imperfect translation but not that of either
Isidore or Dionysius.

285

CANON XX

If any one shall, from a presumptuous disposition, condemn and abhor the
assemblies [in honor] of the martyrs, or the services performed there, and
the commemoration of them, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

Whoever thinks lightly of the meetings in honor of the holy martyrs, let him
be anathema.

HEFELE

Van Espen is of opinion that the Eustathians had generally rejected the
common service as only fit for the less perfect, and that the martyr
chapels are only mentioned here, because in old times service was usually
held there. According to this view, no especial weight need be attached to
the expression. But this canon plainly speaks of a disrespect shown by
the Eustathians to the martyrs. Compare the twelfth article of the Synodal
Letter. Fuchs thought that, as the Eustathians resembled the Aerians, who
rejected the service for the dead, the same views might probably be
ascribed to the Eustathians. But, in the first place, the Aerians are to be
regarded rather as opposed than related in opinion to the Eustathians,
being lax in contrast to these ultra-rigorists. Besides which, Epiphanius
only says that they rejected prayer for the salvation of the souls of the
departed, but not that they did not honor the martyrs; and there is surely a
great difference between a feast in honor of a saint, and a requiem for the
good of a departed soul. Why, however, the Eustathians rejected the

286

veneration of martyrs is nowhere stated; perhaps because they considered
themselves as saints, koct e^o%r|v exalted above the martyrs, who were for
the most part only ordinary Christians, and many of whom had lived in
marriage, while according to Eustathian views no married person could be
saved, or consequently could be an object of veneration.

Lastly, it must be observed that the first meaning of ouvoc^k;, is an
assembly for divine service, or the service itself; but here it seems to be
taken to mean oi)vaycoyr|the place of worship, so that the (xuvd^ei<; xcov
jxaprupcov seems to be identical with martyria, and different from the
^eixovpyiai held in them, of which the latter words of the canon speak.

EPILOGUE.

These things we write, not to cut off those who wish to lead in the
Church of God an ascetic life, according to the Scriptures; but those who
carry the pretense of asceticism to superciliousness; both exalting
themselves above those who live more simply, and introducing novelties
contrary to the Scriptures and the ecclesiastical Canons. We do, assuredly,
admire virginity accompanied by humility; and we have regard for
continence, accompanied by godliness and gravity; and we praise the
leaving of worldly occupations, [when it is made] with lowliness of mind;
[but at the same time] we honor the holy companionship of marriage, and
we do not contemn wealth enjoyed with uprightness and beneficence; and
we commend plainness and frugality in apparel, [which is worn] only from
attention, [and that] not over-fastidious, to the body; but dissolute and
effeminate excess in dress we eschew; and we reverence the houses of God
and embrace the assemblies held therein as holy and helpful, not confining
religion within the houses, but reverencing every place built in the name of
God; and we approve of gathering together in the Church itself for the
common profit; and we bless the exceeding charities done by the brethren
to the poor, according to the traditions of the Church; and, to sum up in a
word, we wish that all things which have been delivered by the Holy
Scriptures and the Apostolical traditions, may be observed in the Church.

287

NOTES

This is lacking in the ancient epitome; and while it occurs after Canon XX.
in the versions of Dionysius Exiguus and of Isidore Mercator, it is not
numbered as a canon. Moreover in John of Antioch's Collection and in
Photius's Nomocanon, the number of canons is said to be 20. Only the
Greek Scholiasts number it as Canon XXL, but its genuineness is
unquestioned.

It is curiously enough found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, divided into
two canons! Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXX., c. xvj., and Dist.
xli., c. v.

VAN ESPEN

The Fathers of Gangra recognize not only the Holy Scriptures, but also
the Apostolical traditions for the rule of morals.

From this [canon] it is by no means doubtful that the fathers of this Synod
considered that the Eustathians had violated some already existing
ecclesiastical canons. Beveridge is of opinion that these are those
commonly called the Canons of the Apostles {Synod. I. 5). Nor is this
unlikely to be true, for there can be no doubt that the doctrines of the
Eustathians condemned by this synod are directly opposed to those very
"Canons of the Apostles"; and no small argument is drawn for the
authority and antiquity of the Canons of the Apostles from the large
number of Eustathian teachings found to be therein condemned, as
Beveridge has pointed out and as can easily be seen by comparing the two.

288

THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN ENCAENIIS

A.D. 341.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

The Synodal Letter.

The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

289

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Of the Synod of Antioch which adopted the canons subsequently received
into the code of the universal church we know the exact date. This is fixed
by the fact that the synod was held at the time of the dedication of the
great church in Antioch, known as the "Golden," which had been begun by
his father, Constantine the Great, and was finished in the days of
Constantius. The synod has for this reason always been known as the
Synod of the year 341. Ninety-seven bishops assembled together and a
large number of them were hostile to St. Athanasius, being professed
Eusebians, all of them were Orientals and most of them belonged to the
patriarchate of Antioch. Not a single Western or Latin bishop was present
and the pope, Julius, was in no way represented. This fact gave Socrates
the historian the opportunity of making the statement (around which such
polemics have raged), that "an ecclesiastical canon commands that the
churches should not make decrees against the opinion of the bishop of
Rome."

But while this much is all clear, there is no council that presents a greater
amount of difficulty to the historian as well as to the theologian. No one
can deny that St. Hilary of Poictiers, who was a contemporary, styled it a
Synod of Saints (Synodus Sanctorum); that two of its canons were read at
Chalcedon as the "canons of the Holy Fathers"; and that Popes John II.,
Zacharias, and Leo. IV. all approved these canons, and attributed them to
that some of the canons were adopted to condemn Athanasius.

Various attempts have been made to escape from these difficulties.

It has been suggested that there really were two Synods at Antioch, the
one orthodox, which adopted the canons, the other heretical.

Father Emanuel Schelstraten, S.J. improved on this theory. He supposed
that the Eusebians stopped behind in Antioch after the orthodox bishops
left and then passed the decrees against Athanasius, giving out that the
synod was still in session. This has been adopted by Pagi, Remi Ceillier,
Walch, and to a certain extent by Schrockh and others. But Tillemont

290

demurs to this view, urging that according to Socrates the deposition of
Athanasius came first and the adoption of the canons afterwards. But
Tillemont would seem to have misunderstood Socrates on this point and
this objection falls to the ground. But another objection remains, viz., that
both Socrates and Sozomen say that the creeds were drawn up after the
deposition of Athanasius, "and yet" (as Hefele remarks, Vol. II., p. 63),
"St. Hilary says that these creeds proceeded from a 'Synod of Saints.'"

Schelstraten's hypothesis not being satisfactory, the learned Ballerini, in
their appendix to the Opera S. Leonis M., have set forth another theory
with which Mansi agrees in his "Notes on Alexander Natalis's Church
History." These maintain that the canons did not come from the Council in
Encoeniis at all, but from another synod held before, in 332; but Hefele
rejects this hypothesis altogether, on the following grounds. First and
chiefest because it has not external evidence to support it; and secondly
because the internal evidence is most unsatisfactory. But even if the 25
canons were adopted by a synod at Antioch in 332, the real difficulty
would not be obviated, for Socrates says of that synod that there too the
"opposers of the Nicene faith" were able to elect their candidate to fill the
place of the banished bishops Eustathius!

Hefele seems to give the true solution of the whole difficulty when he
says: "Certainly Athanasius identified the Eusebians with the Arians and
we regard them as at least Semi-arians; but at that time, after they had
made the orthodox confession of faith, and repeatedly declared their
disapproval of the heresies condemned at Nice, they were considered, by
the greater number, as lawful bishops, and thoroughly orthodox and
saintly men might without hesitation unite with them at a synod."

Pope Julius styles the very Eusebian synod that deposed Athanasius
"dear brethren" while blaming their action, and invited them to a common
synod to enquire into the charges made against the Saint. In view of all this
we may well believe that both orthodox and Eusebians met together at the
consecration of the Emperor's new church, and that the whole church
afterwards awarded the canons then adopted a rank in accordance with
their intrinsic worth, and without any regard to the motives or shades of
theological opinion that swayed those who drafted and voted for them.

291

THE SYNODAL LETTER.

{Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II., col. 559. It really is no
part the canons, but I have placed it here, because, as Labbe notes, "it is
usually prefixed to the canons in the Greek.")

The holy and most peaceful Synod which has been gathered together in
Antioch from the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia,
Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria; to our like-minded and holy fellow
Ministers in every Province, health in the Lord.

The grace and truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ hath regarded the
holy Church of the Antiochians, and, by joining it together with unity of
mind and concord and the Spirit of Peace, hath likewise bettered many
other things; and in them all this betterment is wrought by the assistance
of the holy and peace-giving Spirit. Wherefore, that which after much
examination and investigation, was unanimously agreed upon by us
bishops, who coming out of various Provinces have met together in
Antioch, we have now brought to your knowledge; trusting in the grace of
Christ and in the Holy Spirit of Peace, that ye also will agree with us and
stand by us as far as in you lies, striving with us in prayers, and being
even more united with us, following the Holy Spirit, uniting in our
definitions, and decreeing the same things as we; ye, in the concord which
proceedeth of the Holy Spirit, sealing and confirming what has been
determined.

Now the Canons of the Church which have been settled are hereto
appended.

292

THE CANONS OF THE BLESSED AND HOLY FATHERS
ASSEMBLED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA.

CANON I

Whosoever, shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great
Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor
Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of
Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then]
rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church;
this is said concerning the laity. But if any one of those who preside in the
Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after
this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the
people and to the disturbance of the churches, by observing Easter [at the
same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees that he shall thenceforth
be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself,
but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to many; and it
deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those
also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them.
And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honor, of which
the holy Canon and God's priesthood partake.

293

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

Whoso endeavors to change the lawful tradition of Easter, if he be a
layman let him be excommunicated, but if a cleric let him be cast out of the
Church.

The connection between these canons of Antioch and the Apostolical
Canons is so evident and so intimate that I shall note it, in each case, for
the convenience of the student.

Zonaras and Balsamon both point out that from this first canon it is
evident that the Council of Nice did take action upon the Paschal question,
and in a form well known to the Church.

VAN ESPEN

From this canon it appears that the fathers did not deem laymen deserving
of excommunication who merely broke the decrees, but only those who
"obstinately persist in opposing the decrees sanctioned and received by
the Church; for by their refusal to obey they are attempting to overturn."
And this being the case, why should such not be repelled or cast forth
from the Church as rebels?

Finally this Canon proves that not only bishops and presbyters, but also
deacons were reckoned among them who, "preside in the Church." An
argument in favor of the opinion that the deacons of that time were
entrusted with hierarchical functions.

It is curious that as a matter of fact the entire clergy and people of the
West fell under the anathema of this canon in 1825, when they observed
Easter on the same day as the Jews. This was owing to the adoption of the

294

Gregorian calendar, and this misfortune while that calendar is followed it is
almost impossible to prevent.

Compare Apostolic Canons; Canon VII.

295

CANON II

All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not
communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of
some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out
of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having
brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall
have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with
excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with
those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one Church those
who do not assemble with another Church. And, if any one of the bishops,
presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found
communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be
excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

Whoso comes to church, and attentively hears the holy Scriptures, and then
despises, goes forth from, and turns his back upon the Communion, let him
be cast out, until after having brought forth fruits of penance, he shall be
indulged. And who-so communicates with one excommunicated, shall be
excommunicated, and whoso prays with him who prays not with the
Church is guilty, and even whoso receives him who does not attend the
services of the Church is not without guilt.

BALSAMON

296

In the Eighth and Ninth canons of the Apostles it is set forth how those
are to be punished who will not wait for the prayers, and the holy
Communion: So, too, in the Tenth canon provision is made with respect to
those who communicate with the excommunicated. In pursuance of this
the present canon provides that they are to be cut off who come to church
and do not wait for the prayer, and through disorder [? Axa^iav] will not
receive the holy Communion; for such are to be cast out until with
confession they shew forth worthy penance.

ZONARAS

In this canon the Fathers refer to such as go to church but will not tarry to
the prayer nor receive holy Communion, held back by some perversity or
license, that is to say without any just cause, but petulantly, and by
reason of some disorder ocToc^iocvthese are forbidden to be expelled from
the Church, that is to say cut off from the congregation of the faithful. But
the Fathers call it a turning away from, not a hatred of the divine
Communion, which holds them back from communion; a certain kind of
flight from it, brought about perchance by reverence and lowliness of
mind. Those who object to communicate by reason of hatred or disgust,
such must be punished not with mere separation, but by an altogether
absolute excommunication, and be cursed with anathema.

It need hardly be remarked that this canon has no reference to such of the
faithful as tarry to the end of the service and yet do not partake of the
holy sacrament, being held back by some good reason, recognized by the
Church as such. It will be remembered that the highest grade of Penitents
did this habitually, and that it was looked upon as a great privilege to be
allowed to be present when the Divine Mysteries were performed, even
though those assisting as spectators might not be partakers of them. What
this canon condemns is leaving the Church before the service of the Holy
Eucharist is done; this much is clear, the difficulty is to understand just
why these particular people, against whom the canon is directed, did so.

This canon should be compared with the Apostolic canons viii., ix., x., xj.
xij. andxiij.

297

CANON III

If any presbyter or deacon, or any one whatever belonging to the
priesthood, shall forsake his own parish, and shall depart, and, having
wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in
another parish, let him no longer officiate; especially if his own bishop
shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish and he shall
disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from
his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if
another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be
punished by the Common Synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical
laws. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

If any cleric leaves his own parish and goes off to another, traveling here
and there, and stays for a long time in that other, let him not offer the
sacrifice (^eixovpyeiTCo) especially if he do not return when called by his
own bishop. But if he perseveres in his insolence let him be deposed,
neither afterwards let him have any flower to return. And if any bishop
shall receive him thus deposed, he shall be punished by the Common Synod
for breach of the ecclesiastical laws.

Compare with Canons of the Apostles xv. and xvi.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VII., Quaest. I., Can. xxiv.

298

CANON IV

If any bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or
deacon who has been deposed by his bishop shall presume to execute any
part of the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former
custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect
of restoration in another Synod; nor any opportunity of making his
defense; but they who communicate with him shall all be cast out of the
Church, and particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the
persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

If a bishop deposed by a synod shall dare to celebrate the liturgy, let him
have no chance of return.

This canon derives its chief interest from the fact that it is usually
considered to have been adopted at the instigation of the party opposed to
St. Athanasius and that afterwards it was used against St. Chrysostom.
But while such may have been the secret reason why some voted for it and
others prized it, it must be remembered that its provision is identical with
that of the Apostolic Canons, and that it was read at the Council of
Chalcedon as Canon eighty-three. Remi Ceillier (Histoire GenHistoire
Gnoeral des Autheurs, p. 659) tries to prove that this is not the canon
which St. Chrysostom and his friends rejected, but Hefele thinks his
position "altogether untenable" (Hist, of the Councils, Vol. II., p. (62, n.
1), and refers to Tillemont (Memories, p. 329, Sur les Arians, and Fuchs'
Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen, P. II., p. 59.)

Compare Apostolic Canon xxviij.

299

This canon is found twice in the Juris Corpus Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars II., Causa XL, Quaest. III., Can. vj., and Can. vij. in the
version of Martin Bracarensis. This version is very interesting as
expanding the phrase "to execute any part of the ministry" into "to make
the oblation, or to perform the morning or evening sacrifice as though he
were in office just as before, etc."

300

CANON V

If any presbyter or deacon, despising this own bishop, has separated
himself from the Church, and gathered a private assembly, and set up an
altar; and if, when summoned by his bishop, he shall refuse to be
persuaded and will not obey, even though he summon him a first and a
second time, let such an one be wholly deposed and have no further
remedy, neither be capable of regaining his rank. And if he persist in
troubling and disturbing the Church, let him be corrected, as a seditious
person, by the civil power.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Any presbyter or deacon who spurns his bishop, and withdraws from him,
and sets up another altar, if after being thrice called by the bishop, he shall
persist in his arrogancy, let him be deposed and be deprived of all hope of
restoration.

It will be noted that the Ancient Epitome mentions three warnings, and the
canon only two. The epitome in this evidently follows the Apostolical
Canon, number thirty-one. It is somewhat curious that Aristenus in
commenting on this canon does not note the discrepancy.

VAN ESPEN

This canon, together with the preceding was read from the Code of Canons
at the Council of Chalcedon, at the Fourth Session in connection with the
ease of Carosus and Dorothoeus, and of other monks who adhered to
them. And a sentence in accordance with them was conceived in these
words against those who would not obey the Council in the condemnation

301

of Eutyches, "Let them know that they together with the monks who are
with them, are deprived of grade, and of all dignity, and of communion, as
well as he, so that they cease to preside over their monasteries: and if they
attempt to escape, this holy and universal great council decrees the same
punishment shall attach to them, that is to say the external authority,
according to the divine and holy laws of the Fathers, shall carry out the
sentence passed against the contumacious."

This canon shews that monks and clerics who were rebellious were
sometimes coerced by the Secular Power, when the ecclesiastical power
was not sufficient to coerce them, and hence it was that the secular arm
was called in.

Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXI.

The last clause of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars II. Causa XL, Quaest VIII. Can. 7: (The Latin
however for "by the civil power" is, as is pointed out by the Roman
Correctors, per forasticam potestatem or per forasticam potestatem.

302

CANON VI

If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be
received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or
until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defense,
and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence.
And let this decree apply to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and
all who are enrolled in the clergy-list.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.

The sentence of the greater synod upon a clerk excommunicated by his
bishop, whether of acquittal or condemnation, shall stand.

Compare Apostolic Canons numbers XII. and XXXII

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XL, Quaest. Ill, Can. ij.

303

CANON VII

No stranger shall be received without letters pacifical.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

A traveler having no letter pacific with him is

Compare the Apostolic Canon number XXXIII.

For a discussion of the Letters styled pacifici, see notes on next canon.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. lxxi., c. 9:in Isidore's version. The Roman Corectors the
Apostolic note that Dionysius must have had a different reading from the
Greek we know.

304

CANON VIII.

Let not country presbyters give letters canonical, or let them send such
letters only to the neighboring bishops. But the chorepiscopi of good
report may give letters pacifical.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

A country presbyter is not to give canonical letters, or [at most> only to a
neighboring bishop.

These "letters canonical" were called in the West letters "formatoe" and
no greater proof of the great influence they had in the early days of the
Church in binding the faithful together can be found than the fact that
Julian the Apostate made an attempt to introduce something similar among
the pagans of his empire.

"Commendatory letters" (ercicrcoWi gi>gtoctikoci) are spoken of by St.
Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:1, and the reader will find some interesting remarks
on this and cognate subjects in J. J. Blunt' s, The Christian Church during
the first three Centuries (Chapter 2).

By means of these letters even the lay people found hospitality and care
in every part of the world, and it was thrown up against the Donatists as a
mark of their being schismatics that their canonical letters were good only
among themselves.

Pseudo-Isidore informs us that it was stated at the Council of Chalcedon
by Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, that it was agreed at the Council of
Nice that all such letters should be marked II. Y. A. II. (i.e. Father, Son,
Holy Spirit), and it is asserted (Herzog, Real-Encyk., s. 5:Literae Format,

305

Real-Encyk., s. 5:Literae Formatae) that this form is found in German
documents of the sixth century.

As will be seen among the Canons of Chalcedon, the old name, Letters
Commendatory, is continued, but in this canon and in the 41st of Laodicea
the expression "Canonical Letters" is used. In the West, at least, these
letters received the episcopal seal of the diocese to avoid all possibility of
imposture. Dean Plumptre (whom I am following very closely in this
note) believes the earliest evidence of this use of the diocesan seal is in
Augustine (Epist. 59:al. ccxvij.)He also refers to Ducange, s. 5:Formatae.

As these letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes
called "Communion letters" (koivcovikoci) and are so described by St.
Cyril of Alexandria; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and by St.
Augustine (Epist. 43:al. clxii).

The "Letters Pacifical" appear to have been of an eleemosynary character,
so that the bearers of them obtained bodily help. Chalcedon in its eleventh
canon ordains these "Letters pacifical" shall be given to the poor, whether
they be clerics or laics. The same expression is used in the preceding canon
of the synod.

A later form of ecclesiastical letter is that with which we are so familiar,
the "letter dimissory." This expression first occurs in Carom XVII. of the
Council in Trullo. On this expression Suicer (Thesaurus, s. 5: 6c7toXt)TiKr|)
draws from the context the conclusion that "letters dimissory" were given
only for permanent change of ecclesiastical residence, while, "letters
commendatory" were given to those whose absence from their diocese
was. only temporary.

306

CANON IX

It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who
presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole
province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to
the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank,
and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him,
(according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our
Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and
the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own
parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one,
and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his
city; to ordain prebysters and deacons; and to settle everything with
judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the
metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Bishops should be bound to opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing
should they do without his knowledge except only such things as have
reference to the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame.

VAN ESPEN

From this canon we see that causes of more importance and greater
moment are to be considered in the Provincial Synod which consisted of
the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province.

307

By the "ancient canon" of which mention is here made, there can scarcely
be a doubt is intended the 34:of the Canons of the Apostles, since in it are
read the same provisions (and almost in the same words) as here are set
forth somewhat more at length; nor is there any other canon in which
these, provisions are found earlier in date than this synod, wherefore from
this is deduced a strong argument for the integrity of the Canons of the
Apostles.

The wording of this canon should be compared with the famous sentence
so often quoted of St. Irenseus. "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam [i.e. of Rome]
propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse eat omnem convenire
ecclesiam, hoc est, cos qui aunt undique fideles, in qua sempter ab his, qui
aunt undique, conservata eat eaque est ab Apestolis traditio."

Is it not likely that in the lost Greek original the words translated
convenire ad were at)vxpe%eiv ev? Vide on the meaning of conevenire ad,
F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp. 32 et seqq.

Compare Apostolic Canon XXXIV.

308

CANON X

The Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those
who are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received
ordination to the Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the
churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration
of these; but they may ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall
be content with promoting these, but shall not presume to ordain either a
presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of bishop of the city to which
he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress [these]
decrees, he shall be deposed from tile rank which he enjoys. And a
chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the city to which he is
subject.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

A chorepiscopus makes Exorcists, Lectors, Sub-deacons and Singers, but
not a presbyter or a deacon without the bishop of the city. Who dares to
transgress this law let him be deposed. The bishop of the city makes the
chorpiscopus.

For the Minor Orders in the Early Church see the Excursus on the subject
appended to Canon XXIV. of Laodicea.

"Ordination to the episcopate." In translating thus I have followed both
Dionysius and Isidore, the former of whom translates "although they had
received the imposition of the hand of the bishop and had been
consecrated bishops;" and the latter "although they had received from
bishops the imposition of the hand, and had been consecrated bishops.":

309
VAN ESPEN

There can be no doubt that the Chorepiscopi, the authority of whom is
limited by tiffs canon, are supposed to be endowed with the episcopal
character. Among the learned there is a controversy as to whether
Chorepiscopi were true bishops by virtue of the ordination to that office,
and endowed with the episcopal character or were only bishops when
accidentally so. But whatever may be the merits of this controversy, there
can be no doubt from the context of this canon that the Fathers of Antioch
took it for granted that the chorepiscopi were time bishops by virtue of
their ordination, but it is also evident that they were subject to the bishop
of the greater city. It must also be noted that these chorepiscopi were not
instituted by the canons of the Councils of Ancyra. Neocaesarea, or even
of Nice, for these speak of them and make their decrees as concerning
something already existing.

And from the very limitations of this canon it is by no means obscure that
the fathers of Antioch supposed these chorepiscopi to be real bishops, for
otherwise even with the license of the bishop of the city they could not
ordain presbyters or deacons.

310

CANON XI

If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall
presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters
of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the
metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only
from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have;
inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God,
contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall, require
any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of
the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake
his journey with letters from them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

A bishop or presbyter who (of his own motion and not at the bidding of the
Metropolitan of the province goes to the Emperor shall be deprived both of
communion and dignity.

This canon is one of those magnificent efforts which the early church made
to check the already growing inclination to what we have in later times
learned to call Erastianism. Not only did the State, as soon as it became
Christian, interfere in spiritual matters at its own motion, but there were
found bishops and others of the clergy who not being able to attain their
ends otherwise, appealed to the civil power, usually to the Emperor
himself, and thus the whole discipline of the Church was threatened, and
the authority of spiritual synods set aside. How unsuccessful the Church
often was in this struggle is only too evident from the remarks of the
Greek commentator Balsamon on this very canon.

311

HEFELE

Kellner (Das Buss, und Strafversahren, p. 61) remarks with reference to
this, that deposition is here treated as a heavier punishment than exclusion
from communion, and therefore the latter cannot mean actual
excommunication but only suspension.

312

CANON XII

If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop
deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it
is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to
more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the
examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall
trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he
have an opportunity of defense, nor any hope of future restoration.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

One deposed, if he shall have troubled the Emperor, shall seek the greater
synod, and submit to its decree. But if he again misbehave himself, he shall
not have any chance of restoration.

It is usually supposed that this canon, as well as the fourth, and the
fourteenth and fifteenth, was directed against St. Athanasius, and it was
used against St. Chrysostom by his enemies. Vide Socrates, Ecclesiastical
History, Book II., Chapter viii., and Sozomen' 's Ecclesiastical History <,
Book III., chapter v.; also ibid. Book VII., chapter xx.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXL, Quest. V., Can. ij., in Isidore's Version.

313

CANON XIII.

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain
persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he
have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the
metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should,
without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the
regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things
done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his
irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed
by the holy Synod.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

If without invitation a bishop shall go into another province, and shall
ordain, and administer affairs, what he does shall be void and he himself
The Roman Correctors are not satisfied with shall be deposed.

Compare with this Apostolic Canon xxxv.; also canon 22:of this same
synod.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa ix., Quaest. II., Can. vj. in the Versio Prisca. The Roman
Correctors are not satisfied with it, however, nor with any version and
give the Greek text, to which they add an accurate translation.

314

CANON xrv

If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen
that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some
pronouncing the accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of
all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some
others belonging to the neighboring province, who shall add their judgment
and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm
what is determined.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

If the bishops of the province disagree among themselves as to an accused
bishop, that the controversy may be certainly settled, let other neighboring
bishops be called in.

ZONARAS

When any bishop shall have been condemned with unanimous consent by
all the bishops of the province, the condemnation cannot be called into
doubt, as this synod has set forth in its fourth canon. But if all the bishops
are not of the same mind, but some contend that he should be condemned
and others the contrary, then other bishops may by called in by the
metropolitan from the neighboring provinces, and when their votes are
added to one or other of the parties among the bishops, then controversy
should be brought to a close. This also is the law of the Synod of Sardica,
canons iii. and v.

315

ARISTENUS.

Every bishop accused of crimes should be judged by his own synod, but if
the bishops of the province differ, some saying that he is innocent and
some that he is guilty, the metropolitan can call other bishops from a
neighboring province that they may solve the controversy agitated by the
bishops.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa vi., Quaest. iv., can. j. The Roman Correctors note that the
Latin translation implies that the neighboring metropolitan is to be invited
and say, "But, in truth, it hardly seems fitting that one metropolitan
should come at the call of another, and that there should be two
metropolitans in one synod."

316

CANON XV

If any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the
bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict
concerning him, he shall not be again judged by others, but the unanimous
sentence of the bishops of the province shall stand firm.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

If all the bishops of a province agree with regard to a bishop already
sentenced, a new trial shall not be granted him.

VAN ESPEN

By the phrase "by others "must be understood bishops called from a
neighboring province, of which mention is made in the previous canon,
where in the case of an agreement among the bishops, the synod did not
wish to be called in, even if it were demanded by the condemned bishop.
This canon, therefore, is a supplement as it were to the preceding. And for
this reason in the Breviarium and in Cresconius's Collection of Canons
they are placed under a common title, cap. 144, "Concerning the difference
of opinion which happens in the judgment of bishops, or when a bishop is
cut off by all the bishops of his province."

From these canons it is manifest that at first the causes of bishops were
agitated and decided in provincial synods, and this discipline continued for
many centuries, and was little by little departed from in the VHIth and
IXth centuries.

317

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VI., Quaest. IV., Can. 5:Gratian adds a note which Van
Espen remarks smacks of his own date rather than of that of the Synod of
Antioch.

318

CANON XVI

If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and
seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the
people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And
that shall be [accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is
present.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Whoever without the full synod and without the Metropolitan Council, shall
go over to a vacant church, even if he has no position, he shall be ejected.

BEVERIDGE

This, together with the following canon, was recited by Bishop Leontius
in the Council of Chalcedon, from the book of the canons, in which this is
called the 95th and the following the 96th, according to the order observed
in that book of the canons.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XCIL, Can. 8:in Isidore's version, and the Roman Correctors
note its departure from the original.

319

CANON XVII

If any one having received the ordination of a bishop, and having been
appointed to preside over a people, shall not accept his ministry, and will
not be persuaded to proceed to the Church entrusted to him, he shall be
excommunicated until he, being constrained, accept it, or until a full synod
of the bishops of the province shall have determined concerning, him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Whoso has received orders and abandoned them let him be
excommunicated, until he shall have repented and been received.

ZONARAS

If any one called to the rule of the people refuse to undertake that office
and ministry, let him be removed from communion, that is separated, until
he accept the position. But should he persist in his refusal, he can by no
means be absolved from his separation, unless perchance the full synod
shall take some action in his case. For it is possible that he may assign
reasonable causes why he should be excused from accepting the prelature
offered him, reasons which would meet with the approbation of the
synod.

Balsamon explains the canon in the same sense and adds that by
"ordination" here is intended ordination proper, not merely election, as
some have held.

320

Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXVI.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XCIL, C. vii. The Roman Correctors note that Dionysius's
version is nearer the Greek.

321

CANON xvm

If any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to which
he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because
of the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from
himself, let him enjoy his rank and ministry; only he shall not disturb the
affairs of the Church which he joins; and he shall abide by whatever the
full synod of the province shall determine, after judging the ease.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

Let a bishop ordained but not received by his city have his part of the
honor, and offer the liturgy only, waiting for the synod of the province to
give judgment.

BALSAMON

In canon xvij . the fathers punished him who when ordained could not be
persuaded to go to the church to which he was assigned. In the present
canon they grant pardon to him who is willing to take the charge of the
diocese, for which he was consecrated, but is prevented from doing so by
the impudence of the people or else by the incursions of the infidel; and
therefore they allow him to enjoy, in whatever province he may happen to
be, the honor due his rank, viz., his throne, his title, and the exercise of the
episcopal office, with the knowledge and consent of the bishop of the
diocese. He must not, however, meddle will, the affairs of the church of
which he is a guest, that is to say he must not teach, nor ordain, nor
perform any episcopal act without the consent of the bishop of the
diocese; but he must observe quiet, until he learns what he ought to do by
the determination of the full Synod.

322

Aristenus explains that by keeping quiet is intended that he should not
"use any military help or other power."

This canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xcii., c. 4:and v.; in the versions of Martin
Bracarensis and of Dionysius.

323

CANON XIX

A Bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the
metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means
better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble
together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter.
And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is
indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by
letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the
presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done
contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the
appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any
should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the
majority shall prevail.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

If there be no synod and metropolitan, let there be no bishop. If on account
of some difficulty all do not meet together, at least let the greater number,
or let them give their assent by letter. But if after the affair is all settled a
few are contentious, let the vote of the majority stand firm.

ZONARAS.

In the first place it must be noted that by "ordination" in this place is
meant election, and the laying on of the bishop's hand.

324

BALSAMON

The method of choosing a bishop is laid down in the canons of Nice,
number iv., but the present canon adds the provision that an election
which takes place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and
invalid: and that when those who are electing are divided in opinion as to
whom to choose, the votes of the majority shall prevail. But when you
hear this canon saying that there should be no election without the
presence of the Metropolitan, you must not say that he ought to be
present at an election (for this was prohibited, as is found written in other
canons) but rather say that his presence here is a permission or
persuasion, without which no election could take place.

Compare Apostolic Canon number j.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. LXV., can. iij. Gratian has chosen Isidore's version, and the
Roman Correctors point out that Dionysius' is preferable.

325

CANON XX

With a view to the good of the Church and the settlement of disputes, it is
decreed to be well that synods of the bishops, (of which the metropolitan
shall give notice to the provincials), should be held in every province twice
a year, one after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod
may be ended in the fourth week of the Pentecost; and the second on the
ides of October which is the tenth [or fifteenth] day of the month
Hyperberetaeus; so that presbyters and deacons, and all who think
themselves unjustly dealt with, may resort to these synods and obtain the
judgment of the synod. But it shall be unlawful for any to hold synods by
themselves without those who are entrusted with the Metropolitan Sees.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

On account of ecclesiastical necessities the synod in every province shall
meet twice a year, in the fourth week of Pentecost and on the tenth day of
Hyperbereoeus.

SCHELESTRATIUS (cit. Van Espen).

The time fixed by the Council of Nice before Lent for the meeting of the
synod was not received in the East, and the bishops kept on in the old
custom of celebrating the council in the fourth week after Easter, for the
time before Lent often presented the greatest difficulties for those in the
far separated cities to come to the provincial metropolis.

326

VAN ESPEN

In this canon the decree of Nice in canon 5 is renewed, but with this
difference that the Nicene synod orders one synod to be held before Lent,
but this synod that it should be held the fourth week after Easter.

It will be remembered that the whole period of the great fifty days from
Easter to Whitsunday was known as "Pentecost."

Compare with this Apostolic Canon number XXXVII.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XVIII. , c. xv., attributed to a council held by Pope Martin.
The Roman Correctors point out that this "Pope Martin" was a bishop of
Braga (Bracarensis) from whose collection of the decrees of the Greek
synods Gratian often quotes; the Correctors also note, "For bishops in old
times were usually called Popes" (Antiquitus enim episcopi Papoe
dicebantur).

327

CANON XXI

A Bishop may not be translated from one parish to another, either
intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the
people, or by constraint of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church
to which he was allotted by God from the beginning, and shall not be
translated from it, according to the decree formerly passed on the subject.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

A bishop even if compelled by the people, and compelled by the bishops,
must not be translated to another diocese.

See the treatment of the translation of bishops in the Excursus to canon
15:of Nice. Compare this canon with Apostolical Canon number xiv.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VII., Quaest. I., can. xxv., from Isidore's version.

328

CANON XXII

Let not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor
into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or to
appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another
bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if
any one shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void,
and he himself shall be punished by the synod.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

A bishop shall not go from city to city ordaining people, except by the will of
the bishop of the city: otherwise the ordination shall be without force, and
he himself exposed to censure.

If we do not draw a rash conclusion, we should say that the interference of
bishops in dioceses not their own, must have been very frequent in early
days. This one synod enacted two canons (number XIII. and this present
canon) on the subject. The same prohibition is found in canons XIV. and
XXXV. of the Apostolic canons, in canon XV. of Nice, canon ij. of I.
Constantinople and in many others. On account of the similarity of this
canon to canon 13:some have supposed it to be spurious, the enactment of
some other synod, and this was the opinion of Godefrides Hermantius
(Vita S. Athanasii, Lib. IV., cap. xij.) as well as of Alexander Natalis (Hist.
Sec, IV., Dissert, xxv.). Van Espen, however, is of opinion that the two
canons do not cover exactly the same ground, for he says Canon XIII.
requires letters both from the Metropolitan and from the other bishops of
the province, while this canon XXII. requires only the consent of the
diocesan. He concludes that Canon XIII. refers to a diocese sede vacante,
when the Metropolitan with the other bishops took care of the widowed
church, but that Canon XXII. refers to a diocese with its own bishop,

329

whose will is all that is needed for the performance of episcopal acts by
another bishop. And this distinction Schelestratius makes still more
evident by his discussion of the matter in his scholion on Canon XIII.

Compare with this canon of the Apostolic Canons number XXXV. also
number XIV.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa IX., Quaest. II., can. vij., but in a form differing far from
the Greek original, as the Roman Correctors point out; and even Gratian's
present text is not as he wrote it, but amended.

330

CANON xxm

It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint
another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the
appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed,
that a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with
tile judgment of the bishops, who have the authority to promote tile man
who is worthy, after the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his
labors.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

A dying bishop shall not appoint another bishop. But when he is dead a
worthy successor shall be provided by a synod of those who have this
power.

Nothing could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is
evidently intended to prevent nepotism in every form, and to leave the
appointment to the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the
Metropolitan and his synod. The history of the Church, and its present
practice, is a curious commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the
appointment of coadjutor bishops cure jure successionis, so common in
later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious way of escaping the force of
the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers of the most
interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates in
his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop
of Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it
was prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people
wished him to have one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to
succeed him afterwards, he declined saying: "What was worthy of blame
in my own case, shall not be a blot likewise upon my son." He did not

331

hesitate to say who he thought most worthy to succeed him, but he added,
"he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God so wills he shall be a
bishop." Van Espen adds; "All this should be read carefully that thence
may be learned how St. Augustine set an example to bishops and pastors
of taking all the pains possible that after their deaths true pastors, and not
thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a short time
would destroy all they had accomplished by so much labor in so long a
time." (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI, cap. xj. and car. xxxij.)

Compare Apostolic Canon number LXXVI.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VIII. , Quaest. I., can. III., in Dionysius's version, and again
Canon IV. in that of Martin Bracarensis.

332

CANON XXIV

It is right that what belongs to the Church be preserved with all care to the
Church, with a good conscience and faith in God, the inspector and judge
of all. And these things ought to be administered under the judgment and
authority of the bishop, who is entrusted with the whole people and with
the souls of the congregation. But it should be manifest what is church
property, with the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons about him; so
that these may know assuredly what things belong to the Church, and that
nothing be concealed from them, in order that, when the bishop may
happen to depart this life, the property belonging to the Church being well
known, may not be embezzled nor lost, and in order that the private
property of the bishop may not be disturbed on a pretense that it is part
of the ecclesiastical goods. For it is just and well-pleasing to God and man
that the private property of the bishop be bequeathed to whomsoever he
will, but that for the Church be kept whatever belongs to the Church; so
that neither the Church may suffer loss, nor the bishop be injured under
pretext of the Church's interest, nor those who belong to him fall into
lawsuits, and himself, after his death, be brought under reproach.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

All the clergy should be cognizant of ecclesiastical matters; so that when
the bishop dies the Church may preserve her own goods; but what belongs
to the bishop shall be disposed of according to his directions.

333

VAN ESPEN

This canon shews the early discipline according to which the presbyters
and deacons of the episcopal city, who were said to be "about him" or to
pertain to his chair, represented the senate of the church, who together
with the bishop administered the church affairs, and, when the see was
vacant, had the charge of it. All this Martin of Braga sets forth more
clearly in his version, and I have treated of the matter at large in my work
on Ecclesiastical Law, Pars I., Tit. viii., cap. L, where I have shewn that
the Cathedral chapter succeeded to this senate of presbyters and deacons.

Compare with this canon Apostolical Canon XL.

This canon in a somewhat changed form is found in the Corpus Juris
Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XII., Quaest. I., can. xx.,
and attributed to "Pope Martin's Council"; also compare with this the
ensuing canon, number XXI.

334

CANON XXV.

Let the bishop have power over the funds of the Church, so as to
dispense them with all piety and in the fear of God to all who need. And if
there be occasion, let him take what he requires for his own necessary uses
and those of his brethren sojourning with him, so that they may in no way
lack, according to the divine Apostle, who says, "Having food and
raiment, let us therewith be content." And if he shall not be content with
these, but shall apply the funds to his own private uses, and not manage
the revenues of the Church, or the rent of the farms, with the consent of
the presbyters and deacons, but shall give the authority to his own
domestics and kinsmen, or brothers, or sons, so that the accounts of the
Church are secretly injured, he himself shall submit to an investigation by
the synod of the province. But if, on the other hand, the bishop or his
presbyters shall be defamed as appropriating to themselves what belongs
to the Church, (whether from lands or any other ecclesiastical resources),
so that the poor are oppressed, and accusation and infamy are brought
upon the account and on those who so administer it, let them also be
subject to correction, the holy synod determining what is right.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV

The bishop shall have power over ecclesiastical goods. But should he not
be content with those things which are sufficient for him but shall alienate
the goods and revenues of the church, without the advice of the clergy,
penalties shall be I exacted from him in the presence of the synod. But if he
has converted to his own uses what was given for the poor, of this also let
him give an explanation to the synod.

335

Compare with this canon Apostolic Canon number XLI.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XIL, Quaest I., can. XXIII. and with this should be
compared canon XXII. immediately preceding.

At the end of this canon in Labbe's version of Dionysius we find these
words added. "And thirty bishops signed who were gathered together at
this Synod." Isidore Mercator has a still fuller text, viz.: "I, Eusebius,
being present subscribe to all things constituted by this holy Synod.
Theodore, Nicetas, Macedonius, Anatolius, Tarcodimantus, Aethereus,
Narcissus, Eustachius, Hesychius, Mauricius, Paulus, and the rest, thirty
bishops agreed and signed." Van Espen after noting that this addition is
not found in the Greek, nor in Martin Bracarensis, adds "there is little
probability that this clause is of the same antiquity as the canons."

336

SYNOD OF LAODICEA

A.D. 343-381.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Canon XVIII., On the Choir Offices of the Early Church.

Excursus to Canon XIX., On the Worship of the Early Church.

Excursus to Canon XXII., On the Vestments of the Early Church.

Excursus to Canon XXIV., On the Minor Orders in the Early Church.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

The Laodicea at which the Synod met is Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana,
also called Laodicea ad Lycum, and to be carefully distinguished from the
Laodicea in Syria. This much is certain, but as to the exact date of the
Synod there is much discussion. Peter de Marca fixed it at the year 365,
but Pagi in his Critica on Baronius's Annals seems to have overthrown the
arguments upon which de Marca rested, and agrees with Gothofred in
placing it circa 363. At first sight it would seem that the Seventh Canon
gave a clue which would settle the date, inasmuch as the Photinians are
mentioned, and Bishop Photinus began to be prominent in the middle of
the fourth century and was anathematized by the Eusebians in a synod at
Antioch in 344, and by the orthodox at Milan in 345; and finally, after
several other condemnations, he died in banishment in 366. But it is not
quite certain whether the word "Photinians "is not an interpolation.
Something with regard to the date may perhaps be drawn from the word

337

nocKOCTiocvf|<; as descriptive of Phrygia, for it is probable that this division
was not yet made at the time of the Sardican Council in 343. Hefele
concludes that "Under such circumstances, it is best, with Remi Ceillier,
Tillemont, and others, to place the meeting of the synod of Laodicea
generally somewhere between the years 343 and 381, i.e., between the
Sardican and the Second Ecumenical Council — and to give up the attempt
to discover a more exact date."

But since the traditional position of the canons of this Council is after
those of Antioch and immediately before those of First Constantinople, I
have followed this order. Such is their position in "very many old
collections of the Councils which have had their origin since the sixth or
even in the fifth century," says Hefele. It is true that Matthew Blastares
places these canons after those of Sardica, but the Quinisext Synod in its
Second Canon and Pope Leo IV., according to the Corpus Juris Canonici,
give them the position which they hold in this volume.

338

THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD HELD IN THE CITY OF

LAODICEA, IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA, IN WHICH MANY

BLESSED FATHERS FROM DIVERS PROVINCES OF ASIA WERE

GATHERED TOGETHER.

The holy synod which assembled at Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, from
divers regions of Asia; set forth the ecclesiastical definitions which are
hereunder annexed.

NOTE.

This brief preface, by some ancient collector, is found in the printed
editions of Zonaras and of Balsamon and also in the Amerbachian
manuscript.

CANON I

It is right, according to the ecclesiastical Canon, that the Communion
should by indulgence be given to those who have freely and lawfully
joined in second marriages, not having previously made a secret marriage;
after a short space, which is to be spent by them in prayer and fasting.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

A digamist not secretly married, after devoting himself for a short time to
praying shall be held blameless afterwards.

339

VAN ESPEN

Many synods imposed a penance upon digamists, although the Church
never condemned second marriages.

On this whole subject of second marriages see notes on Canon VIII. of
Nice, on Canons III. and VII. of Neocaesarea, and on Canon XIX. of
Ancyra. In treating of this canon Hefele does little but follow Van Espen,
who accepts Bishop Beveridge's conclusions in opposition to Justellus
and refers to him, as follows, "See this observation of Justellus' refuted
more at length by William Beveridge in his notes on this canon," and Bp.
Beveridge adopted and defended the exposition of the Greek
commentators, viz.: there is some fault and some punishment, they are to
be held back from communion for "a short space," but after that, it is
according to the law of the Church that they should be admitted to
communion. The phrase "not having previously made a secret marriage"
means that there must not have been intercourse with the woman before
the second marriage was "lawfully" contracted, for if so the punishment
would have been for fornication, and neither light nor for "a short space."
The person referred to in the canon is a real digamist and not a bigamist,
this is proved by the word "lawfully" which could not be used of, the
second marriage of a man who already had a living wife.

340

CANON II

They who have sinned in divers particulars, if they have persevered in the
prayer of confession and penance, and are wholly converted from their
faults, shall be received again to communion, through the mercy and
goodness of God, after a time of penance appointed to them, in proportion
to the nature of their offense.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

Those who have fallen unto various faults and have confessed them with
compunction, and done the penance suitable to them, shall be favorably
received.

HEFELE.

Van Espen and others were of opinion that this canon treated only of
those who had themselves been guilty of various criminal acts, and it has
been asked whether any one guilty not only of one gross sin, but of several
of various kinds, might also be again received into communion. It seems to
me, however, that this canon with the words, "those who have sinned in
divers particulars," simply means that "sinners of various kinds shall be
treated exactly in proportion to the extent of their fall." That the question
is not necessarily of different sins committed by the same person appears
from the words, "in proportion to the nature of their offense," as the
singular, not the plural, is here used.

341

But Van Espen, with Aubespine, is clearly right in not referring the words,
"if they persevere in confession and repentance," to sacramental
confession, to which the expression, "persevere" would not be well suited.
Here is evidently meant the oft-repeated contrite confession before God
and the congregation in prayer of sins committed, which preceded
sacramental confession and absolution.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXVI. , Quest, vii., can. iv.

342

CANON III

HE who has been recently baptized ought not to be promoted to the
sacerdotal order.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

A neophyte is not ordainable.

This rule is laid down in the Second Nicene canon. Balsamon also
compares Apostolic Canon lxxx.

BALSAMON

Notwithstanding this provision, that great light, Nectarius, just separated
from the flock of the catechumens, when he had washed away the sins of
his life in the divine font, now pure himself, he put on the most pure
dignity of the episcopate, and at the same time became bishop of the
Imperial City, and president of the Second Holy Ecumenical Synod.

343

CANON IV

They who are of the sacerdotal order ought not to lend and receive usury,
nor what is called hemioliae.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

A priest is not to receive usury nor hemiolioe.

The same rule is laid down in the seventeenth Canon of Nice. For a
treatment of the whole subject of usury see excursus to that canon.

Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore have numbered this canon v., and our fifth
they have as iv.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XL VI., can. ix.

344

CANON V

Ordinations are not to be held in the presence of hearers.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Ordinations are not to be performed in the presence of hearers.

BALSAMON

This canon calls elections "laying on of hands," and says that since in
elections unworthy things are often said with regard to those who are
elected, therefore they should not take place in the presence of any that
might happen to come to hear.

Zonaras also agrees that election is here intended, but Aristenus dissents
and makes the reference to ordinations properly so-called, as follows:

ARISTENUS.

The prayers of ordination are not to be said out loud so that they may be
heard by the people.

345

CANON VI

It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they
continue in heresy.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

The holy place is forbidden to heretics.

ARISTENUS.

Heretics are not to be permitted to enter the house of God, and yet Basil
the Great, before this canon was set forth, admitted Valens to the
perfecting of the faithful [i.e., to the witnessing the celebration of the
Divine Mysteries].

VAN ESPEN

A heretic who pertinaciously rejects the doctrine of the Church is rightly
not allowed to enter the house of God, in which his doctrine is set forth,
so long as he continues in his heresy. For this reason when Timothy,
Archbishop of Alexandria, was consulted concerning the admission of
heretics to church, answered in the IXth Canon of his Canonical Epistle,
that unless they were ready to promise to do penance and to abandon their
heresy, they could in no way be admitted to the prayers of tile faithful.

Contrast with this Canon lxxxiv., of the so-called IVth Council of
Carthage, A.D. 398.

346

CANON VII

Persons converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians,
and Quartodecimans, whether they were catechumens or communicants
among them, shall not be received until they shall have anathematized
every heresy, and particularly that in which they were held; and
afterwards those who among them were called communicants, having
thoroughly learned the symbols of the faith, and having been anointed with
the holy chrism, shall so communicate in the holy Mysteries.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

Novatians and Photinians, and Quartodecimans, unless they anathematize
their own and other heresies, are not to be received. When they have been
anointed, after their abjuration, let them communicate.

I have allowed the word "Photinians" to stand in the text although whether
it is not an interpolation is by no means certain. They certainly were
heretical on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore differed from
the other dissidents mentioned in the canon, all of whom were orthodox on
this matter. It is also worthy of note that the word is not found in
Ferrandus's Condensation (Breviatio Canonum, n. 177) nor in Isidore's
version. Moreover there is a Latin codex in Lucca, and also one in Paris (as
is noted by Mansi, 5:585; ij. 591) in which it is lacking. It was rejected by
Baronius, Binius, and Remi Ceillier.

The word "Catechumens" is wanting in many Greek MSS. but found in
Balsamon, moreover, Dionysius and Isidore had it in their texts.

This canon possesses a great interest and value to the student from a
different point of view. Its provisions, both doctrinal and disciplinary, are
in contrariety with the provisions of the council held at Carthage in the

347

time of St. Cyprian, and yet both these canons, contradictory as they are,
are accepted by the Council in Trullo and are given such ecumenical
authority as canons on discipline ever can possess, by the Seventh
Ecumenical. This is not the only matter in which the various conciliar
actions adopted and ratified do not agree inter se, and from this
consideration it would seem evident that it was not intended that to each
particular of each canon of each local synod adopted, the express sanction
of the Universal Church was given, but that they were received in block as
legislation well calculated for the good of the Church. And that this must
have been the understanding at tile time is evinced by the fact that while
the Trullan canons condemned a number of Western customs and usages,
as I shall have occasion to point out in its proper place, no objection was
made by the Roman legates to the canon of the Seventh Ecumenical which
received them as authoritative.

348

CANON vm

Persons converted from the heresy of those who are called Phrygians,
even should they be among those reputed by their as clergymen, and even
should they be called the very chiefest, are with all care to be both
instructed and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

When Phrygians return they are to be baptized anew, even if among them
they were reckoned clergymen.

HEFELE

This synod here declares the baptism of the Montanists invalid, while in
the preceding canon it recognized as valid the baptism of the Novatians
and Quartodecimans. From this, it would appear that the Montanists were
suspected of heresy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Some other
authorities of the ancient Church, however, judged differently, and for a
long time it was a question in the Church whether to consider the baptism
of the Montanists valid or not. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria was in
favor of its validity: but this Synod and the Second General Council
rejected it as invalid, not to mention the Synod of Iconium (235), which
declared all heretical baptism invalid. This uncertainty of the ancient
Church is accounted for thus: (a) On one side the Montanists, and
especially Tertullian, asserted that they held the same faith and
sacraments, especially the same baptism (eadem lavacri sacramenta) as
the Catholics. St. Epiphanius concurred in this, and testified that the
Montanists taught the same regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy

349

Ghost, as did the Catholic Church, (b) Other Fathers, however, thought
less favorably of them, and for this reason, that the Montanists often
expressed themselves so ambiguously, that they might, nay, must be said
completely to identify the Holy Ghost with Montanus. Thus Tertullian in
quoting expressions of Montanus, actually says: "the Paraclete speaks";
and therefore Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, and other
Fathers, did in fact, reproach the Montanists with this identification, and
consequently held their baptism to be invalid, (c) Basil the Great goes to
the greatest length in this direction in maintaining that the Montanists had
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of Montanus and
Priscilla. But it is very probable, as Tillemont conjectured, that Basil only
founded these strange stories of their manner of baptizing upon his
assumption that they identified Montanus with the Holy Ghost; and, as
Baronius maintains, it is equally "probable that the Montanists did not
alter the form of baptism. But, even admitting all this, their ambiguous
expressions concerning Montanus and the Holy Ghost would alone have
rendered it advisable to declare their baptism invalid, (d) Besides this, a
considerable number of Montanists, namely, the school of Aeschines, fell
into Sabellianism, and thus their baptism was decidedly invalid. (Vide
Article in Wetzer and Welte Kirchenlexicon s. 5:Montanus; by myself [i.e.
Hefele]).

In conclusion, it must be observed that Balsamon and Zonaras rightly
understood the words in our text, "even though they be called the very
chiefest," "though they be held in the highest esteem," to refer to the most
distinguished clergy and teachers of the Montanists.

350

CANON IX.

The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor
attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service;
but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a
time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be
received.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Whoso prayeth in the cemeteries and martyries of heretics is to be
excommunicated.

ZONARAS

By the word "service" (9epoc7teioc<;) in this canon is to be understood the
healing of sickness. The canon wishes that the faithful should under no
pretense betake themselves to the prayers of heretical pseudo-martyrs nor
pay them honor in the hope of obtaining the healing of sickness or the cure
of their various temptations. And if any do so, they are to be cut off, that
is for a time forbidden communion (and this refers to the faithful who are
only laymen), but when they have done penance and made confession of
their fault, the canon orders that they are to be received back again.

BALSAMON

351

As canon 6:forbids heretics to enter the house of God, so this canon
forbids the faithful to go to the cemeteries of heretics, which are called by
them "Martyries."... For in the days of the persecution, certain of the
heretics, calling themselves Christians, suffered even to death, and hence
those who shared their opinions called them "martyrs."

VAN ESPEN

As Catholics had their martyrs, so too had the heretics, and especially the
Montanists or Phrygians, who greatly boasted of them. Apollinaris writes
of these as may be seen in Eusebius (H. E., Lib. v., cap. xvj.)

The places or cemeteries in which rested the bodies of those they boasted
of as martyrs, they styled "Martyries" (martyria) as similar places among
Catholics were wont to be called by the same name, from the bones of the
martyrs that rested there.

From the Greek text, as also from Isidore's version it is clear that this
canon refers to all the faithful generally, and that "the members of the
Church" (Lat. Ecclesiastici, the word Dionysius uses) must be taken in
this wide signification.

352

CANON X

The members of the Church shall not indiscriminately marry their children
to heretics.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

Thou shalt not marry a heretic.

FUCHS.

{Bib. der Kirchenvers., pt. ii., p. 324.) "Indiscriminately" means not that
they might be given in marriage to some heretics and not to others; but that
it should not be considered a matter of indifference whether they were
married to heretics or orthodox.

Zonaras and Balsamon, led astray by the similar canon enacted at
Chalcedon (number xiv.), suppose this restriction only to apply to the
children of the clergy, but Van Espen has shewn that the rule is of general
application. He adds, however, the following:

VAN ESPEN

Since by the custom of the Greeks, ecclesiastics are allowed to have wives,
there is no doubt that the marriage of their children with heretics would be
indecent in a very special degree, although there are many things which go
to shew that marriage with heretics was universally deemed a thing to be
avoided by Catholics, and was rightly forbidden.

353

CANON XI

Presbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be
appointed in the Church.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

Widows called presidents shall not be appointed in churches.

BALSAMON

In old days certain venerable women (TtpeaPiSxiSef;) sat in Catholic
churches, and took care that the other women kept good and modest order.
But from their habit of using improperly that which was proper, either
through their arrogancy or through their base self-seeking, scandal arose.
Therefore the Fathers prohibited the existence in the Church thereafter of
any more such women as are called presbytides or presidents. And that no
one may object that in the monasteries of women one woman must preside
over the rest, it should be remembered that the renunciation which they
make of themselves to God and the tonsure brings it to pass that they are
thought of as one body though many; and all things which are theirs, relate
only to the salvation of the soul. But for woman to teach in a Catholic
Church, where a multitude of men is gathered together, and women of
different opinions, is, in the highest degree, indecorous and pernicious.

354

HEFELE

It is doubtful what was here intended, and this canon has received very
different interpretations. In the first place, what is the meaning of the
words rcpeapiSxiSec; and 7tpoKoc9r|jj,evai ("presbytides" and female
presidents)? I think the first light is thrown on the subject by Epiphanius,
who in his treatise against the Collyridians (Hoer., 79:4) says that
"women had never been allowed to offer sacrifice, as the Collyridians
presumed to do, but were only allowed to minister. Therefore there were
only deaconesses in the Church, and even if the oldest among them were
called 'presbytides,' this term must be clearly distinguished from
presbyteresses. The latter would mean priestesses (lepiaaocq), but
'presbytides' only designated their age, as seniors." According to this, the
canon appears to treat of the superior deaconesses who were the overseers
(7tpoKoc9r||j,£vai) of the other deaconesses; and the further words of the
text may then probably mean that in future no more such superior
deaconesses or eldresses were to be appointed, probably because they had
often outstepped their authority.

Neander, Fuchs, and others, however, think it more probable that the
terms in question are in this canon to be taken as simply meaning
deaconesses, for even in the church they had been wont to preside over the
female portion of the congregation (whence their name of "presidents");
and, according to St. Paul' s rule, only widows over sixty years of age were
to be chosen for this office (hence called "presbytides"). We may add, that
this direction of the apostle was not very strictly adhered to subsequently,
but still it was repeatedly enjoined that only eider persons should be
chosen as deaconesses. Thus, for instance, the Council of Chalcedon, in its
fifteenth canon, required that deaconesses should be at least forty years of
age, while the Emperor Theodosius even prescribed the age of sixty.

Supposing now that this canon simply treats of deaconesses, a fresh doubt
arises as to how the last words — "they are not to be appointed in the
Church" are to be understood. For it may mean that "from henceforth no
more deaconesses shall be appointed;" or, that "in future they shall no
more be solemnly ordained in the church." The first interpretation would,

355

however, contradict the fact that the Greek Church had deaconesses long
after the Synod of Laodicea. For instance, in 692 the Synod in Trullo (Can.
xiv.) ordered that "no one under forty years of age should be ordained
deaconess." Consequently the, second interpretation, "they shall not he
solemnly ordained in the church," seems a better one, and Neander
decidedly prefers it. It is certainly true that several later synods distinctly
forbade the old practice of conferring a sort of ordination upon
deaconesses, as, for instance, the first Synod of Orange (Arausicanum I. of
441, Can. xxyj.) in the words — diaconoe omnimodis non ordinandoe; also
the Synod at Epaon in 517 (Can. xxj.), and the second Synod at Orleans in
533 (Can. xviij.); but in the Greek Church at least, an ordination, a
XeipoToveioGoci took place as late as the Council in Trullo (Can. xiv.).
But this Canon of Laodicea does not speak of solemn dedication, and
certainly not of ordination, but only of KocGiGTOcaGoci These reasons
induce us to return to the first interpretation of this canon, and to
understand it as forbidding from that time forward the appointment of any
more chief deaconesses or "presbytides."

Zonaras and Balsamon give yet another explanation. In their opinion, these
"presbytides" were not chief deaconesses, but aged women in general (ex
populo), to whom was given the supervision of the females, in church.
The Synod of Laodicea, however, did away with this arrangement,
probably because they had misused their office for purposes of pride, or
money-making, bribery, etc.

Compare with the foregoing the Excursus on Deaconesses, appended to
Canon XIX. of Nice.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XXXII. , c. xix, in Isidore's version; but Van Espen remarks
that the Roman Correctors have pointed out that it departs widely from
the Greek original. The Roman Correctors further say "The note of
Balsamon on this point, should be seen;" and with this interpretation
Morinus also agrees in his work on Holy Orders (De Ordinationibus, Pars
III., Exercit. x., cap. iij., n. 3).

356

CANON XII

Bishops are to be appointed to the ecclesiastical government by the
judgment of the metropolitans and neighboring bishops, after having been
long proved both in the foundation of their faith and in the conversation of
an honest life.

NOTE.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

Whoever is most approved in faith and life and most learned, he is fit to be
chosen bishop.

The first part of this canon is in conformity with the provision in the IV.
canon of Nice.

357

CANON xm

The election of those who are to be appointed to the: priesthood is not to
be committed to the multitude.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

Whose is chosen by seculars is ineligible.

BALSAMON

From this canon it is evident that in ancient times not only bishops but
also priests were voted for by the multitude of the people. This is here
forbidden.

ARISTENUS.

Bishops are elected by metropolitans and other bishops. If anyone in this
manner shall not have been promoted to the Episcopate, but shall have
been chosen by the multitude, he is not to be admitted nor elected.

[It is clear from this that by "the Priesthood" Aristenus understands the
episcopate, and I think rightly:]

VAN ESPEN

The word in the Greek to which "multitude" corresponds (6%Xo<;)
properly signifies a tumult.

358

What the fathers intend to forbid are tumultuous elections, that is, that no
attention is to be paid to riotous demonstrations on the part of the people,
when with acclamations they are demanding the ordination of anyone,
with an appearance of sedition. Such a state of affairs St. Augustine
admirably describes in his Epistola adAlbinam (Epist. cxxvi., Tom. II, col.
548, Ed. Gaume).

And it is manifest that by this canon the people were not excluded from all
share in the election of bishops and priests from what St. Gregory
Nazianzen says, in Epistola ad Coesarienses, with regard to the election of
St. Basil. From this what could be more evident than that after this canon
was put out the people in the East still had their part in the election of a
bishop? This also is clear from Justinian's "Novels" (Novelloe, cxxiij., e.j.
andcxxxvij., c. ij.)

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. lxiii., can. vj„ but in proof of the proposition that laymen
were hereby forbidden to have any share in elections. Van Espen notes
that Isidore's version favors Gratian's misunderstanding, and says that
"no doubt that this version did much to exclude the people from the
election of bishops."

359

CANON XIV.

The holy things are not to be sent into other dioceses at the feast of Easter
by way of eulogy.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

It is not right to send the holy gifts to another parish.

HEFELE

It was a custom in the ancient Church, not indeed to consecrate, but to
bless such of the several breads of the same form laid on the altar as were
not needed for the communion, and to employ them, partly for the
maintenance of the clergy, and partly for distributing to those of the
faithful who did not communicate at the Mass. The breads thus blessed
were called eulogioe. Another very ancient custom was, that bishops as a
sign of Church fellowship, should send the consecrated bread to one
another. That the Roman Popes of the first and second centuries did so,
Irenaeus testifies in his letter to Pope Victor in Eusebius. In course of
time, however, instead of the consecrated bread, only bread which had
been blessed, or eulogioe, were sent abroad. For instance, Paulinus and
Augustine sent one another these eulogioe. But at Easter the older custom
still prevailed; and to invest the matter with more solemnity, instead of the
eulogioe, the consecrated bread, i.e., the Eucharist, was sent out. The
Synod of Laodicea forbids this, probably out of reverence to the holy
Sacrament.

360

Binterim (Denkwurdegkeiten, vol. IV., P. iij., p. 535.) gives another
explanation. He starts from the fact that, with the Greeks as well as the
Latins, the wafer intended for communion is generally called sancta or
ayioc even before the consecration. This is not only perfectly true, but a
well-known fact; only it must not be forgotten that these wafers or
oblations were only called sancta by anticipation, and because of the
sanctification to which they were destined. Binterim then states that by
ayioc in the canon is to be understood not the breads already consecrated,
but those still unconsecrated. He further conjectures that these
unconsecrated breads were often sent about instead of the eulogioe, and
that the Synod of Laodicea had forbidden this, not during the whole year,
but only at Easter. He cannot, however, give any reason, and his statement
is the more doubtful, as he cannot prove that these unconsecrated
communion breads really used before to be sent about as eulogioe.

In connection with this, however, he adds another hypothesis. It is known
that the Greeks only consecrate a square piece of the little loaf intended
for communion, which is first cut out with the so-called holy spear. The
remainder of the small loaf is divided into little pieces, which remain on or
near the altar during Mass, after which they are distributed to the
non-communicants. These remains of the small loaf intended for
consecration are called dvciScopoc and Binterim' s second conjecture is,
that these dvciScopocmight perhaps have been sent as eulogioe and may be
the ayioc of this canon. But he is unable to prove that these
dvTiScopocwere sent about, and is, moreover, obliged to confess that they
are nowhere called eulogioe, while this canon certainly speaks of eulogioe.
To this must be added that, as with regard to the unconsecrated wafer, so
we see no sufficient cause why the Synod should have forbidden these
dvciScopa being sent.

361

CANON XV

No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go
up into the ambo and sing from a book.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

No one should ascend the ambon unless he is tonsured.

HEFELE

The only question [presented by this canon] is whether this synod
forbade the laity to take any part in the Church music, as Binius and
others have understood the words of the text, or whether it only intended
to forbid those who were not cantors taking the lead. Van Espen and
Neander in particular were in favor of the latter meaning, pointing to the
fact that certainly in the Greek Church after the Synod of Laodicea the
people were accustomed to join in the singing, as Chrysostom and Basil
the Great sufficiently testify. Bingham propounded a peculiar opinion,
namely, that this Synod did indeed forbid the laity, to sing in the church,
or even to join in the singing, but this only temporarily, for certain
reasons. I have no doubt, however, that Van Espen and Neander take the
truer view.

362

CANON XVI

The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other
Scriptures.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

The Gospel, the Epistle [ocTtOGToXot;] and the other Scriptures are to be
read on the Sabbath.

BALSAMON

Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither
the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the
Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling
on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much
feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the
Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said.

Neander (Kirchengesch., 2d ed., vol. iij., p. 565 et seq.) suggests in
addition to the interpretation just given another, viz.: that it was the
custom in many parts of the ancient Church to keep every Saturday as a
feast in commemoration of the Creation. Neander also suggests that
possibly some Judaizers read on the Sabbath only the Old Testament; he,
however, himself remarks that in this case exxxyyeXioc and exepcov
Ypoccpaw would require the article.

VAN ESPEN

363

Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord's day except
so far as the cessation of work was concerned, wherefore the Council
wishes that, as on Sundays, after the other lessons there should follow the
Gospel.

For it is evident that by the intention of the Church the whole Divine
Office was designed for the edification and instruction of the people, and
especially was this the case on feast days, when the people were apt to be
present in large numbers.

Here we may note the origin of our present [Western] discipline, by which
on Sundays and feast days the Gospel is wont to be read with the other
Scriptures in the canonical hours, while such is not the case on ferial days,
or in the order for ferias and "simples."

364

CANON XVII

The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson
shall intervene after every psalm.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

In time of service lessons shall be interspersed with the Psalms.

ARISTENUS.

It was well to separate the Psalms by lessons when the congregation was
gathered in church, and not to keep them continuously singing unbroken
psalmody, lest those who had assembled might become careless through
weariness.

ZONARAS

This was an ancient custom which has been laid aside since the new order
of ecclesiastical matters has been instituted.

VAN ESPEN

Here it may be remarked we find the real reason why in our present rite,
the lections, verses, etc., of the nocturnes are placed between the Psalms,
so as to repel weariness.

365

CANON XVIII.

The same Service of prayers is to be said always both at hones and at
vespers.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

The same prayers shall be said at nones vespers.

HEFELE

Some feasts ended at the ninth hour, others only in the evening, and both
alike with prayer. The Synod here wills that in both eases the same
prayers should be used. Thus does Van Espen explain the words of the
text, and I think rightly. But the Greek commentator understands the
Synod to order that the same prayers should be used in all places, thus
excluding all individual caprice. According to this, the rule of conformity
would refer to places; while, according to Van Espen, the hones and
vespers were to be the same. If, however, this interpretation were correct,
the Synod would not have only spoken of the prayers at hones and
vespers, but would have said in general, "all dioceses shall use the same
form of prayer."

366
EXCURSUS ON THE CHOIR OFFICES OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Nothing is more marked in the lives of the early followers of Christ than
the abiding sense which they had of the Divine Presence. Prayer was not
to them an occasional exercise but an unceasing practice. If then the
Psalmist sang in the old dispensation "Seven times a day do I praise thee"
(Psalm 1 19: 164), we may be quite certain that the Christians would never
fall behind the Jewish example. We know that among the Jews there were
the "Hours of Prayer," and nothing would be, a priori, more likely than
that with new and deeper significance these should pass over into the
Christian Church. I need not pause here to remind the reader of the
observance of "the hour of prayer" which is mentioned in the New
Testament, and shall pass on to my more immediate subject.

Most liturgiologists have been agreed that the "Choir Offices" of the
Christian Church, that is to say the recitation of the Psalms of David, with
lessons from other parts of Holy Scripture and collects, was an actual
continuation of the Jewish worship, the melodies even of the Psalms being
carried over and modified through the ages into the plain song of today.
For this view of the Jewish origin of the Canonical Hours there is so much
to be said that one hesitates to accept a rival theory, recently set forth
with much skill and learning, by a French priest, who had the inestimable
happiness of sitting at the feet of De Rossi. M. Pierre Battifol is of
opinion that the Canonical Hours in no way come from the Jewish Hours
of Prayer but are the outgrowth of the Saturday Vigil service, which was
wholly of Christian origin, and which he tells us was divided into three
parts, j., the evening service, or lucernarium, which was the service of
Vespers; ij., the midnight service, the origin of the Nocturns or Martins;
iij., the service at daybreak, the origin of Lauds. Soon vigils were kept for
all the martyr commemorations; and by the time of Tertullian, if not
before, Wednesdays and Fridays had their vigils. With the growth of
monasticism they became daily. This Mr. Battifol thinks was introduced
into Antioch about A.D. 350, and soon spread all over the East. The "little
hours," that is Terce, Sext, and None, he thinks were monastic in origin

367

and that Prime and Compline were transferred from the dormitory to the
church, just as the martyrology was transferred from the refectory.

Such is the new theory, which, even if rejected, at least is valuable in
drawing attention to the great importance of the vigil- service in the Early
Church, an importance still attaching to it in Russia on the night of Easter
Even.

Of the twilight service we have a most exquisite remains in the hymn to be
sung at the lighting of the lamps. This is one of the few Psalmi idiotici
which has survived the condemnation of such compositions by the early
councils, in fact the only two others are the Gloria in Excelsis and the Te
Deum. The hymn at the lighting of the lamps is as follows:

"O gladsome light
Of the Father Immortal,
And of the celestial
Sacred and blessed
Jesus, our Savior!

"Now to the sunset

Again hast thou brought us;

And seeing the evening

Twilight, we bless thee,

Praise thee, adore thee!

"Father omnipotent!

Son, the Life-giver!

Spirit, the Comforter!

Worthy at all times

Of worship and wonder!"

Dr. Battifol's new theory was promptly attacked by P. Suibbert Baumer,
a learned German Benedictine who had already written several magazine
articles on the subject before Battifol's book had appeared.

The title of Baumer' s book is Geschichte des Breviers, Versuch einer
quellenmassigen Darstellung der Entiivicklung des altkirchen und des
romeschen Officiums bis aufunsere Ttage. (Freibug in Briesgau, 1895.)
The following may be taken as a fair resume of the position taken in this
work and most ably defended, a position which (if I may be allowed to

368

express an opinion) is more likely to prevail as being most in accordance
with the previous researches of the learned.

"The early Christians separated from the Synagogues about A.D. 65; that
is, about the same time as the first Epistle to Timothy was written, and at
this moment of separation from the Synagogue the Apostles had already
established, besides the liturgy, at least one, probably two, canonical hours
of prayer, Mattins and Evensong, Besides what we should call sermons,
the service of these hours was made up of psalms, readings from Holy
Scripture, and extempore prayers. A few pages on (p. 42) Baumer allows
that even if this service had been daily in Jerusalem the Apostles' times,
yet it had become limited to Sundays in the sub-Apostolic times, when
persecution would not allow the Apostolic custom of daily morning and
evening public prayer. Yet the practice of private prayer at the third, sixth,
and ninth hours continued, based upon an Apostolic tradition; and thus,
when the tyranny of persecution was overpast, the idea of public prayer
at these hours was saved and the practice carried on."

The student should by no means omit to read Dom Prosper Gueranger's
Institutions Liturgiques, which while written in a bitter and most partisan
spirit, is yet a work of the most profound learning. Above all anyone
professing any familiarity with the literature on the subject must have
mastered Cardinal Bona's invaluable De Divina Psalmodia, a mine of
wisdom and a wonder of research.

369

CANON XIX.

After the sermons of the Bishops, the prayer for the catechumens is to be
made first by itself; and after the catechumens have gone out, the prayer
for those who are under penance; and, after these have passed under the
hand [of the Bishop] and departed, there should then be offered the three
prayers of the faithful, the first to be said entirely in silence, the second
and third aloud, and then the [kiss of] peace is to be given. And, after the
presbyters have given the [kiss of] peace to the Bishop, then the laity are
to give it [to one another], and so the Holy Oblation is to be completed.
And it is lawful to the priesthood alone to go to the Altar and [there]
communicate.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

After the prayers of the catechumens shall be said those of the Penitents,
and afterwards those of the faithful. And after the peace, or brace, has been
given, the offering shall be made. Only priests shall enter the sanctuary
and make there their communion

The Greek commentators throw but little if any light upon this canon. A
question has been raised as to who said the prayers mentioned. Van
Espen, following Isidore's translation "they also pray who are doing
penance," thinks the prayer of the penitents, said by themselves, is
intended, and not the prayer said by the Bishop. But Hefele, following
Dionysius's version — "the prayers over the catechumens," "over those
who are doing penance" — thinks that the liturgical prayers are intended,
which after the sermon were wont to be said "over" the different classes.
Dionysius does not say "over" the faithful, but describes them as "the

370

prayers of the faithful," which Hefele thinks means that the faithful joined
in reciting them.

371

EXCURSUS ON THE WORSHIP OF THE EARLY CHURCH

(Percival, H. R.: Johnson's Universal Cyclopoedia, Vol. V., s. 5:Liturgics.)

St. Paul is by some learned writers supposed to have quoted in several
places the already existing liturgy, especially in I. Cor. ij. 9., and there can
be no doubt that the Lord's prayer was used and certain other formulas
which are referred to by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles as "the
Apostles' prayers." How early these forms were committed to writing has
been much disputed among the learned, and it would be rash to attempt to
rule this question. Pierre Le Brun presents most strongly the denial of
their having been written during the first three centuries, and Probst argues
against this opinion. While it does not seem possible to prove that before
the fourth century the liturgical books were written out in full, owing no
doubt to the influence of the disciplina arcani, it seems to be true that
much earlier than this there was a definite and fixed order in the celebration
of divine worship and in the administration of the sacraments. The famous
passage in St Justin Martyr seems to point to the existence of such a form
in his day, shewing how even then the service for the Holy Eucharist
began with the Epistle and Gospel. St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom bear
witness to the same thing.

Within, comparatively speaking, a few years, a good deal of information
with regard to the worship of the early Church has been given us by the
discovery of the Ai8oc%r| and of the fragments the Germans describe as the
K. O., and by the publication of M. Gamurrini's transcript of the
Peregrinatio Silvice.

From all these it is thought that liturgical information of the greatest value
can be obtained. Moreover the first two are thought to throw much light
upon the age and construction of the Apostolical Constitutions. Without
in any way committing myself to the views I now proceed to quote, I lay
then before the reader as the results of the most advanced criticism in the
matter.

(Duchesne. Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 54 et seq.)

372

All known liturgies may be reduced to four principal types — the Syrian,
the Alexandrian, the Roman, and the Gallican. In the fourth century there
certainly existed these four types at the least, for the Syrian had already
given rise to several sub-types which were clearly marked.

The most ancient documents of the Syrian Liturgy are:

1 . The Catechetical Lectures of St, Cyril of Jerusalem, delivered about the
year 347.

2. The Apostolic Constitutions (Bk. II., 57, and Bk. VIIL, 5-15).

3. The homilies of St. John Chrysostom.

St. John Chrysostom often quotes lines of thought and even prayers taken
from the liturgy. Bingham was the first to have the idea of gathering
together and putting ill order these scattered references. This work has
been recently taken in hand afresh by Mr. Hammond. From this one can
find much interesting corroborative evidence, but the orator does not give
anywhere a systematic description of the liturgy, in the order of its rites
and prayers.

The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril are really a commentary upon the
ceremonies of the mass, made to the neophytes after their initiation. The
preacher does not treat of the missa catechumenorum because his hearers
had so long been familiar with it; he presupposes the bread and wine to
have been brought to and placed upon the altar, and begins at the moment
when the bishop prepares himself to celebrate the Holy Mysteries by
washing his hands.

In the Apostolic Constitutions a distinction must be drawn between Book
II. and Book VIIL The first is very sketchy; it only contains a description
of the rites without the words used, the other gives at length all the
formulas of the prayers, but only from the end of the Gospel.

We know now that the Apostolical Constitutions in the present state of
the Greek text represent a melting down and fusing together of two
analogous books — the Didaskale of the Apostles, of which only a Syriac
version is extant; and the Didake of the Apostles, recently discovered by
the metropolitan, Philotheus Bryennius. The first of these two books has
served as a basis for the, first six books of the Apostolical Constitutions.

373

The second, much spread out, has become the seventh book of the same
collection. The eighth book is more homogeneous. It must have been added
to the seven others by the author of the recension of the Didaskale and of
the Didake. This author is the same as he who made the interpolations in
the seven authentic letters of St. Ignatius, and added to them six others of
his own manufacture. He lived at Antioch in Syria, or else in the
ecclesiastical region of which that city was the center. He wrote about the
middle of the fourth century, at the very high tide of the Subordination
theology, which finds expression more than once in his different
compositions. He is the author of the description of the liturgy, which is
found in Book II.; in fact, that whole passage is lacking in the Syriac
Ddaskale. Was it also he who composed the liturgy of the VHIth book?
This is open to doubt, for there are certain differences between this liturgy
and that of the 2nd book.

I shall now describe the religious service such as these documents
suppose, noting, where necessary, their divergences.

The congregation is gathered together, the men on one side the women on
the other, the clergy in the apsidal chancel. The readings immediately
begin; they are interrupted by chants. A reader ascends the ambo, which
stood in the middle of the church, between the clergy and the people, and
read two lessons; then another goes up in his place to sing a psalm. This
he executes as a solo, but the congregation join in the last modulations of
the chant and continue them. This is what is called the "Response"
(psalmus responsorius), which must be distinguished carefully from the
"Antiphon, " which was a psalm executed alternately by two choirs. At
this early date the antiphon did not exist, only the response was known.
There must have been a considerable number of readings, but we are not
told how many. The series ended with a lection from the Gospel, which is
made not by a reader but by a priest or deacon. The congregation stands
during this lesson.

When the lessons and psalmodies are done, the priests take the word, each
in his turn, and after them the bishop. The homily is always preceded by a
salutation to the people, to which they answer, "And with thy spirit."

After the sermon the sending out of the different categories of persons
who should not assist at the holy Mysteries takes place. First of all the

374

catechumens. Upon the invitation of the deacon they make a prayer in
silence while the congregation prays for them. The deacon gives the outline
of this prayer by detailing the intentions and the things to be prayed for.
The faithful answer, and especially the children, by the supplication Kyrie
elision. Then the catechumens rise up, and the deacon asks them to join
with him in the prayer which he pronounces; next he makes them bow
before the bishop to receive his benediction, after which he sends them
home.

The same form is used for the energumens, for the competentes, i.e., for
the catechumens who are preparing to receive baptism, and last of all for
the penitents.

When there remain in the church only the faithful communicants, these fall
to prayer; and prostrate toward the East they listen while the deacon says
the litany — "For the peace and good estate of the world; for the holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church; for bishops, priests; for the Church's
benefactors; for the neophytes; for the sick; for travelers; for little
children; for those who are erring," etc. And to all these petitions is added
Kyrie eleison. The litany ends with this special form "Save us, and raise us
up, O God, for thy mercy's sake." Then the voice of the bishop rises in
the silence — he pronounces a solemn prayer of a grave and majestic style.

Here ends the first part of the liturgy; that part which the Church had
taken from the old use of the synagogues. The second part, the Christian
liturgy, properly so-called, begins by the salutation of the bishop,
followed by the response of the people. Then, at a sign given by a deacon,
the clergy receive the kiss of peace from the bishop, and the faithful give it
to each other, men to men, women to women.

Then the deacons and the other lower ministers divide themselves between
watching and serving at the altar. The one division go through the
congregation, keeping all in their proper place, and the little children on the
outskirts of the sacred enclosure, and watching the door that no profane
person may enter the church. The others bring and set upon the altar the
breads and the chalices prepared for the Sacred Banquet; two of them
wave fans backwards and forwards to protect the holy offerings from
insects. The bishop washes his hands and vests himself in festal habit; the
priests range themselves around him, and all together they approach the

375

altar. This is a solemn moment. After private prayer the bishop makes the
sign of the cross upon his brow and begins,

"The grace of God Almighty, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you always!

"And with thy spirit. "Lift up your hearts.
"We lift them up unto the Lord.
"Let us give thanks unto our Lord.
"It is meet and right so to do.
"It is very meet," etc.

And the eucharistic prayer goes on... concluding at last with a return to the
mysterious Sanctuary where God abides in the midst of spirits, where the
Cherubims and the Seraphims eternally make heaven ring with the
trisagion.

Here the whole multitude of the people lift up their voices and joining
their song with that of the choir of Angels, sing, "Holy, Holy, Holy," etc.

When the hymn is done and silence returns, the bishop continues the
interrupted eucharistic prayer.

"Thou truly art holy," etc., and goes on to commemorate the work of
Redemption, the Incarnation of the Word, his mortal life, his passion; now
the officiant keeps close to the Gospel account of the last supper; the
mysterious words pronounced at first by Jesus on the night before his
death are heard over the holy table. Then, taking his inspiration from the
last words, "Do this in remembrance of me," the bishop develops the idea,
recalling the Passion of the Son of God, his death, his resurrection, his
ascension, the hope of his glorious return, and declaring that it is in order
to observe this precept and make this memorial that the congregation
offers to God this eucharistic bread and wine. Finally he prays the Lord to
turn upon the Oblation a favorable regard, and to send down upon it the
power of his Holy Spirit, to make it the. Body and Blood of Christ, the
spiritual food of his faithful, and the pledge of their immortality.

Thus ends the eucharistic prayer, properly so-called. The mystery is
consummated.... The bishop then directs the prayers... and when this long

376

prayer is finished by a doxology, all the congregation answer "Amen," and
thus ratify his acts of thanks and intercession.

After this is said "Our Father," accompanied by a short litany.... The
bishop then pronounces his benediction on the people.

The deacon awakes the attention of the faithful and the bishop cries aloud,
"Holy things for holy persons." And the people answer, "There is one
only holy, one only Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father,"
etc.

No doubt at this moment took place the fraction of the bread, a ceremony
which the documents of the fourth century do not mention in express
terms.

The communion then follows. The bishop receives first, then the priests,
the deacons, the sub-deacons, the readers, the singers, the ascetics, the
deaconesses, the virgins, the widows, the little children, and last of all the
people.

The bishop places the consecrated bread in the right hand, which is open,
and supported by the left; the deacon holds the chalice — they drink out
of it directly. To each communicant the bishop says, "The Body of
Christ"; and the deacon says, "The Blood of Christ, the Cup of life," to
which the answer is made, "Amen."

During the communion the singers execute Psalm XXXIII. [XXXIV. Heb.
numbering] Benedicam Dominum, in which the words "O, taste and see
how gracious the Lord is," have a special suitability.

When the communion is done, the deacon gives the sign for prayer, which
the bishop offers in the name of all; then all bow to receive his blessing.
Finally the deacon dismisses the congregation, saying, "Go in peace."

377

CANON XX.

It is not right for a deacon to sit in the presence of a presbyter, unless he
be bidden by the presbyter to sit down. Likewise the deacons shall have
worship of the subdeacons and all the [inferior] clergy.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

A deacon shall not sit down unless bidden.

This is another canon to curb the ambition of Levites who wish to take
upon themselves the honors of the priesthood also. Spiritual Cores seem
to have been common in early times among the deacons and this is but one
of many canons on the subject. Compare Canon XVIII of the Council of
Nice. Van Espen points out that in the Apostolic Constitutions (Lib. II. ,
cap. lvij), occurs the following passage, "Let the seat for the bishop be set
in the midst, and on each side of him let the presbyters sit, and let the
deacons stand, having their loins girded."

VAN ESPEN

Here it should be noted, by the way, that in this canon there is presented a
hierarchy consisting of bishops, presbyters, and deacons and other inferior
ministers, each with their mutual subordination one to the other.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xciii., c. xv., in Dionysius's version.

378

CANON XXI

The subdeacons have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch
the Lord's vessels.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

A subdeacon shall not touch the vessels.

The "Lord's vessels" are the chalice and what we call the sacred vessels.

ARISTENUS.

The ecclesiastical ministers shall not take into their hands the Lord's
vessels, but they shall be carried to the Table by the priests or deacons.

Both Balsamon and Zonaras agree that by "UTtepeTou is here meant
subdeacons.

HEFELE

It is doubtful whether by diaconicum is here meant the place where the
deacons stood during service, or the diaconicum generally so called, which
answers to our sacristy of the present day. In this diaconicum the sacred
vessels and vestments were kept; and as the last part of the canon
especially mentions these, I have no doubt that the diaconicum must mean
the sacristy. For the rest, this canon is only the concrete expression of the
rule, that the subdeacons shall not assume the functions of the deacons.

With regard to the last words of this canon, Morinus and Van Espen are of
opinion that the subdeacons were not altogether forbidden to touch the

379

sacred vessels, for this had never been the case, but that it was intended
that at the solemn entrance to the altar, peculiar to the Greek service, the
sacred vessels which were then carried should not be born by the
subdeacons.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxiii., c. xxvj.

380

CANON XXII

The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole], nor to leave
the doors.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

A subdeacon must not wear an orarium nor leave the doors.

The "orarium" is what we call now the stole.

In old times, so we are told by Zonaras and Balsamon, it was the place of
the subdeacons to stand at the church doors and to bring in and take out
the catechumens and the penitents at the proper points in the service.
Zonaras remarks that no one need be surprised if this, like many other
ancient customs, has been entirely changed and abandoned.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxxii., canon xxvij., but reads hostias instead of ostia, thus
making the canon forbid the subdeacons to leave the Hosts; and to make
this worse the ancient Glossator adds, "but the subdeacon should remain
and consume them with the other ministers." The Roman Correctors
indeed note the error but have not felt themselves at liberty to correct it on
account of the authority of the gloss. Van Espen remarks "Today if any
Hosts remain which are not to be reserved, the celebrant consumes them
himself, but perchance in the time the gloss was written, it was the custom
that the subdeacons and other ministers of the altar were accustomed to do
this, but whenever the ministers present gradually fell into the habit of not
receiving the sacrament, this consumption of what remained devolved
upon the celebrant."

381

EXCURSUS ON THE VESTMENTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH

It would be out of place to enter into any specific treatment of the
different vestments worn by the clergy in the performance of their various
duties. For a full discussion of this whole matter I must refer my readers
to the great writers on liturgical and kindred matters, especially to Cardinal
Bona, De Rebus Liturgicis; Pugin, Ecclesiastical Glossary; Rock, Church
of our Fathers; Hefele, Beitrage zu Kircheschichte, Archaologie und
Liturgik (essay in Die Liturgschen Gervander, vol. ij. p. 184 sqq.). And I
would take this opportunity of warning the student against the entirely
unwarranted conclusions of Durandus's Rationale Divinorum Officiorum
and of Marriott' s Vestiarium Christianum.

The manner in which the use of the stole is spoken of in this canon shews
not only the great antiquity of that vestment but of other ecclesiastical
vestments as well. Before, however, giving the details of our knowledge
with regard to this particular vestment I shall need no apology for quoting
a passage, very germane to the whole subject, from the pen of that most
delightful writer Curzon, to whose care and erudition all scholars and
students of manuscripts are so deeply indebted.

(Robert Curzon, Armenia, p. 202.)

Here I will remark that the sacred vestures of the Christian Church are the
same, with very insignificant modifications, among every denomination of
Christians in the world; that they have always been the same, and never
were otherwise in any country, from the remotest times when we have
any written accounts of them, or any mosaics, sculptures, or pictures to
explain their forms. They are no more a Popish invention, or have
anything more to do with the Roman Church, than any other usage which
is common to all denominations of Christians. They are and always have
been, of general and universal — that is, of Catholic — use; they have
never been used for many centuries for ornament or dress by the laity,
having been considered as set apart to be used only by priests in the
church during the celebration of the worship of Almighty God.

382

Thus far the very learned Curzon. As is natural the distinctive dress of the
bishops is the first that we hear of, and that in connection with St. John,
who is said to have worn a golden mitre or fillet.

(Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 376 et sqq.)

It was not the bishops alone who were distinguished by insignia from the
other ecclesiastics. Priests and deacons had their distinctive insignia as
well. There was, however, a difference between Rome and the rest of the
world in this matter. At Rome it would seem that but little favor was
extended at first to these marks of rank; the letter of Pope Celestine to the
bishops shews this already. But what makes it evident still more clearly, is
that the orarium of the priest and of the deacon, looked upon as a visible
and distinctive mark of these orders, was unknown at Rome, at least down
to the tenth century, while it had been adopted everywhere else.

To be sure, the orarium is spoken of in the ordines of the ninth century;
but from these it is also evident that this vestment was worn by acolytes
and subdeacons, as well as by the superior clergy, and that its place was
under the top vestment, whether dalmatic or chasuble, and not over it. But
that orarium is nothing more than the ancient sweat-cloth (sudarium), the
handkerchief, or cravat which has ended up by taking a special form and
even by becoming an accessory of a ceremonial vestment: but it is net an
insignia. I know no Roman representation of this earlier than the twelfth
century. The priests and deacons who figure in the mosaics never display
this detail of costume.

But such is not the case elsewhere. Towards the end of the fourth century,
the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia forbade inferior classes, subdeacons,
readers, etc., to usurp the orarium. St. Isidore of Pelusium knew it as
somewhat analogous to the episcopal pallium, except that it was of linen,
while the pallium was of wool. The sermon on the Prodigal Son,
sometimes attributed to St. John Chrysostom [Migne's Ed., vol. viij.,
520], uses the same term, oGovn. it adds that this piece of dress was worn
over the left shoulder, and that as it swung back and forth it called to mind
the wings of the angels.

The deacons among the Greeks wear the stole in this fashion down to
today, perfectly visible, over the top of the upper vestment, and fastened

383

upon the left shoulder. Its ancient name (cbpdcpiov) still clings to it. As for
the orarium of the priests it is worn, like the stole of Latin priests, round
the neck, the two ends falling in front, almost to the feet. This is called the
epitrachilion (e7tixpoc%r|^iov).

These distinctions were also found in Spain and Gaul. The Council of
Braga, in 561, ordered that deacons should wear these oraria, not under the
tunicle, which caused them to be confounded with the subdeacon, but over
it, over the shoulder. The Council of Toledo, in 633, describes the orarium
as the common mark of the three superior orders, bishops, priests, and
deacons; and specifies that the deacon should wear his over his left
shoulder, and that it should be white, without any mixture of colors or any
gold embroidery. Another Council of Braga forbade priests to say mass
without having a stole around their necks and crossed upon the breast,
exactly as Latin priests wear it today. St. Germanus of Paris speaks of the
insignia of a bishop and of a deacon; to the first he assigns the name of
pallium, and says that it is worn around the neck, and falls down upon the
breast where it ends with a fringe. As for the insignia of a deacon he calls it
a stole (stola); and says that deacons wear it over the alb. This fashion of
wearing the stole of the deacon spread during the middle ages over nearly
the whole of Italy and to the very gates of Rome. And even at Rome the
ancient usage seems to have been maintained with a compromise. They
ended up by adopting the stole for deacons and by placing it over the left
shoulder, but they covered it up with the dalmatic or the chasuble.

The priest's stole was also accepted: and in the mosaics of Sta. Maria in
Trastevere is seen a priest ornamented with this insignia. It is worthy of
notice that the four popes who are represented in the same mosaic wear
the pallium but no stole. The one seems to exclude the other. And as a
matter of fact the ordines of the ninth century in describing the costume of
the pope omit always the stole. One can readily understand that who bore
one of these insignia should not wear the other.

However, they ended by combining them, and at Revenue, where they
always had a taste for decorations, bishop Ecclesius in the mosaics of San
Vitale wears both the priest's stole and the Roman pallium. This,
however, seems to be unique, and his successors have the pallium only.
The two are found together again in the Sacramentary of Autun (Vide M.

384

Lelisle's reproduction in the Gazette Archeologique, 1884, pi. 20), and on
the paliotto of St. Ambrose of Milan; such seems to have been the usage
of the Franks.

In view of these facts one is led to the conclusion that all these insignia,
called pallium, omophorion, orarium, stole, epitrachilion, have the same,
origin. They are the marks of dignity, introduced into church usage during
the fourth century, analogous to those which the Theodosian code orders
for certain kinds of civil functionaries. For one reason or another the
Roman Church refused to receive these marks, or rather confined itself to
the papal pallium, which then took a wholly technical signification. But
everywhere else, this mark of the then superior orders of the hierarchy
was adopted, only varying slightly to mark the degree, the deacon wearing
it over the left shoulder, the bishop and priest around the neck, the deacon
over the tunicle which is his uppermost vestment, the priest under the
chasuble; the bishop over his chasuble. However, for this distinction
between a bishop and priest we have very little evidence. The Canon of III
Brags, already cited, which prescribes that priests shall wear the stole
crossed over the breast, presupposes that it is worn under the chasuble,
but the council understands that this method of wearing it pertains
distinctively to priests, and that bishops have another method which they
should observe; for the word sacerdotes, used by the council, includes
bishops as well as priests. The rest of the Spanish ecclesiastical literature
gives us no information upon tile point. In Gaul, St. Germanus of Paris (as
we have seen) speaks of the episcopal pallium after having described the
chasuble, which makes one believe that it was worn on top. I have already
said that Bishop Ecclesius of Ravenna is represented with the stole
pendant before, under the chasuble and at the same time with the pallium
on top of it; and that this usage was adopted in France in the Carlovingian
times. Greek bishops also wear at the same time the epitrachilion and the
omophorion. This accumulation of insignia was forbidden in Spain in the
seventh century (Vide IV Toledo, Canon XXXIX), and (as we have
stated) the Pope abstained from it until about the twelfth century,
contenting himself with the pallium without adding to it the stole.

The pallium, with the exception of the crosses which adorn its ends, was
always white; so too was the deacon's stole and also that of the priest and
bishop. The pallium was always and everywhere made of wool; in the

385

East the deacon's stole was of linen; I cannot say of what material the
priest's and deacon's stole was in the West.

386

CANON XXIII

The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or
sing thus [habited] .

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

Cantors and lectors shall not wear the orarium.

VAN ESPEN

Rightly Zonoras here remarks, "for the same reason (that they should not
seem to wish to usurp a ministry not their own) it is not permitted to
these to wear the stole, for readers are for the work of reading, and singers
for singing," so each one should perform his own office.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxiii., can. xxviij.

387

CANON XXIV

No one of the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the
ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers,
or any of the class of the Ascetics, ought to enter a tavern.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

No clergyman should enter a tavern.

Compare this with Apostolic Canon LIV., which contains exceptions not
here specified.

This canon is contained in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
ParsI.,Dist. 44:c.jj.

388

EXCURSUS ON THE MINOR ORDERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH

(Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, Vol. I., p. 258.)

Some of these lower orders, the subdeacons, readers, door-keepers, and
exorcists, are mentioned in the celebrated letter of Cornelius bishop of
Rome (A.D. 251) preserved by Eusebius (H.E., vi., 43), and the readers
existed at least half a century earlier (Tertull. de Praescr., 41). In the
Eastern Church, however, if we except the Apostolic Constitutions, of
which the date and country are uncertain, the first reference to such offices
is found in a canon of the Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, where readers,
subdeacons, and exorcists, are mentioned, this being apparently intended
as an exhaustive enumeration of the ecclesiastical orders below the
diaconate; and for the first mention of door-keepers in the East, we must
go to the still later Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 363, (see III., p. 240,
for the references, where also fuller information is given). But while most
of these lower orders certainly existed in the West, and probably in the
East, as early as the middle of the third century the case is different with
the "singers" (\|/d^xai) and the "laborers" (kotu&tou). Setting aside the
Apostolic Constitutions, the first notice of the "singers" occurs in the
canons of the above-mentioned Council of Laodicea. This, however, may
be accidental. The history of the word copiatai affords a more precise and
conclusive indication of date. The term first occurs in a rescript of
Constantius (A.D. 357), "clerici qui copiatai appellantur," and a little later
(A.D. 361), the same emperor speaks of them as "hi quos copiatas recens
usus instituit nuncupari."

(Adolf Harnack, in his little book ridiculously entitled in the English
version Sources of the Apostolic Canons, page 85.)

Exorcists and readers there had been in the Church from old times,
subdeacons are not essentially strange, as they participate in a name
(deacon) which dates from the earliest days of Christianity. But acolytes
and door-keepers (7U)Xcopoi) are quite strange, are really novelties. And
these acolytes even at the time of Cornelius stand at the head of the

389

ordines minor es: for that the subdeacons follow on the deacons is
self-evident. Whence do they come? Now if they do not spring out of the
Christian tradition, their origin must be explained from the Roman. It can
in fact he shown there with desirable plainness.

With regard to subdeacons the reader may also like to see some of
Harnack's speculations. In the volume just quoted he writes as follows (p.
85 note):

According to Cornelius and Cyprian subdeacons were mentioned in the
thirtieth canon of the Synod of Elvira (about 305), so that the sub
diaconate must then have been acknowledged as a fixed general institution
in the whole west (see Dale, The Synod of Elvira, Lond., 1882). The same
is seen in the "gesta apud Zenophilum." As the appointment of the lower
orders took place at Rome between about the years 222-249, the
announcement in the Liber Pontificalis (see Duchesne's edition, fasc. 2,
1885, p. 148) is not to be despised, as according to it Bishop Fabian
appointed seven subdeacons: "Hie regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit
7:subdiaconos." The Codex Liberianus indeed (see Duchesne, fasc. 1, pp. 4
and 5; Lipsius, Chronologie d. rom Bischofe, p. 267), only contains the
first half of the sentence, and what the Liber Pontif. has added of the
account of the appointment of subdeacons (... qui vii notariis imminerent,
ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colligerent) is, in spite of the
explanation of Duchesne, not convincing. According to Probst and other
Catholic scholars the subdiaconate existed in Rome a long time before
Fabian (Kirchl. Disciplin, p. 109), but Hippolytus is against them.
Besides, it should be observed that the officials first, even in Carthage, are
called hypo-deacons, though the word subdiaconus was by degrees used in
the West. This also points to a Roman origin of the office, for in the
Roman church in the first part of the third century the Greek language was
the prevailing one, but not at Carthage.

But to return to the Acolythes, and door-keepers, whom Harnack thinks
to be copies of the old Roman temple officers. He refers to Marquardt' s
explanation of the sacrificial system of the Romans, and gives the
following resume (page 85 et seqq.):

1. The temples have only partially their own priests, but they all have a
superintendent (oedituus-curator templi). These ceditui, who lived in the

390

temple, fall again into two classes. At least "in the most important
brotherhoods the chosen oedituus was not in a position to undertake in
person the watching and cleaning of the sacellum. He charged therefore
with this service a freedman or slave." "In this case the sacellum had two
oeditui, the temple-keeper, originally called magister oedituus, and the
temple-servant, who appears to be called the oedituus minister." "To both
it is common that they live in the temple, although in small chapels the
presence of the servant is sufficient. The temple- servant opens, shuts, and
cleans the sacred place, and shows to strangers its curiosities, and allows,
according to the rules of the temple, those persons to offer up prayers and
sacrifices to whom this is permitted, while he sends away the others."

2. "Besides the endowment, the colleges of priests were also supplied
with a body of servants" — the under official — ; "they were appointed to
the priests,... by all of whom they were used partly as letter-carriers
(tabellarii), partly as scribes, partly as assistants at the sacrifices."
Marquardt reckons, (page 218 and fol.) the various categories of them
among the sacerdotes publici, lictores, pullarii, victimarii, tibicines,
viatores, sixthly the calatores, in the priests' colleges free men or
freedmen, not slaves, and in fact one for the personal service of each
member.

Here we have the forerunners of the Church door-keepers and acolytes.
Thus says the fourth Council of Carthage, as far as refers to the former:
"Ostiarius cure ordinatur, postquam ab archidiacono instructus fuerit,
qualiter in dome dei debeat conversari, ad suggestionem archidiaconi, tradat
ei episcopus claves ecclesiae de altari, dicens. Sic age, quasi redditurus deo
rationem pro his rebus, quae hisce clavibus recluduntur." The ostiarius
(nvXcopoq) is thus the aedituus minister. He had to look after the opening
and shutting of the doors, to watch over the coming in and going out of the
faithful, to refuse entrance to suspicious persons, and, from the date of the
more strict separation between the missa catechumenorum and the missa
fidelium, to close the doors, after the dismissal of the catechumens, against
those doing penance and unbelievers. He first became necessary when
there were special church buildings (there were such even in the second
century), and they like the temples, together with the ceremonial of divine
service, had come to be considered as holy, that is, since about 225. The
church acolytes are without difficulty to be recognized in the under

391

officials of the priests, especially in the "calatores," the personal servants
of the priests. According to Cyprian the acolytes and others are used by
preference as tabellarii. According to Cornelius there were in Rome
forty-two acolytes. As he gives the number of priests as forty-six, it may
be concluded with something like certainty that the rule was that the
number of the priests and of the acolytes should be equal, and that the
little difference may have been caused by temporary vacancies. If this
view is correct, the identity of the calator with the acolyte is strikingly
proved. But the name "acolyte" plainly shows the acolyte was not, like
the door-keeper, attached to a sacred thing, but to a sacred person.

(Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, ad Antioch, xj., note. Vol. II., Sec.
II., p. 240.)

The acolytes were confined to the Western Church and so are not
mentioned here. On the other hand the "deaconesses" seem to have been
confined to the Eastern Church at this time. See also Apost. Const., iii., 11.;
viii., 12; comp. viii., 19-28, 31; Apost. Can., 43; Cone. Laodic, Can. 24;
Cone. Antioch, Can. 10. Of these lower orders the "subdeacons" are first
mentioned in the middle of the third century, in the passage of Cornelius
already quoted and in the contemporary letters of Cyprian. The "readers"
occur as early as Tertullian de Proescr. 41 "hodie diaconus, qui eras
lecfor," where the language shows that this was already a firmly
established order in the Church. Of the "singers" the notices in the
Apostolical Constitutions are probably the most ancient. The
"door-keepers," like the sub-deacons, seem to be first mentioned in the
letter of Cornelius. The koizi&vtec, first appear a full century later; see the
next note. The "exorcists," as we have seen, are mentioned as a distinct
order by Cornelius, while in Apost. Const., viii., 26, it is ordered that they
shall not be ordained, because it is a spiritual function which comes direct
from God and manifests itself by its results. The name and the function,
however, appear much earlier in the Christian Church; e.g., Justin Mart.,
Apol. ii., 6 (p. 45). The forms e7topKiaxr|<; and e^opKicnr|<; are
convertible; e.g., Justin Mart., Dial., 85 (p. 311). The "confessors" hardly
deserve to be reckoned a distinct order, though accidentally they are
mentioned in proximity with the different grades of clergy in Apost.
Const., viii., 12, already quoted. Perhaps the accidental connection in this
work has led to their confusion with the offices of the Christian ministry

392

in our false Ignatius. In Apost. Const., viii., 23, they are treated in much
the same way as the exorcists, being regarded as in some sense an order
and yet not subject to ordination. Possibly, however, the word o^oXyTycai
has here a different sense, "chanters," as the corresponding Latin
"confessores" seems sometimes to have, e.g., in the Sacramentary of
Gregory "Oremus et pro omnibus episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus,
acolythis, exorcistis, lectoribus, ostiariis, confessoribus, virginibus, viduis,
et pro omni populo sancto Dei;" see Ducange, Gloss. Lat., s. 5: (11. p.
530, Henschel).

In a law of the year 357 (Cod. Theod., xiii., 1) mention is made of "clerici
qui copiatae appellantur," and another law of the year 361 (Cod. Theod.
xvi., 2, 15) runs "clerici vero vel his quos copiatas recens usus instituit
nuncupari," etc. From these passages it is clear that the name K.oni&\zeq
was not in use much before the middle of the fourth century, though the
office under its Latin name "fossores" or "fossarii" appears somewhat
earlier. Even later Epiphanius (Expos. Fid., 21) writes as if the word still
needed some explanation. In accordance with these facts, Zahn (I. v., A. p.
129), correctly argues with regard to our Ignatian writer, urging that on the
one hand he would not have ascribed such language to Ignatius if the word
had been quite recent, while on the other hand his using the participle
(xohq KOTt(3vToc<;) rather than the substantive indicates that it had not yet
firmly established itself. For these "copiatae" see especially de Rossi,
Roma Sotteranea, III., p. 533 sq., Gothofred on God. Theod., II., cc, and
for the Latin "fossores" Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Chret. s.v. See also the
inscriptions, C. I, G., 9227, Bull, de Corr. Hellen., vii., p. 238, Journ. of
Hellen. Stud., vi., p. 362.

393

CANON XXV

A Subdeacon must not give the Bread, nor bless the Cup,

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV

A subdeacon may not give the bread and the cup.

ARISTENUS.

Subdeacons are not allowed to perform the work of presbyters and
deacons. Wherefore they neither deliver the bread nor the cup to the
people.

HEFELE

According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the communion was
administered in the following manner: the bishop gave to each the holy
bread with the words: "the Body of the Lord," and the recipient said,
"Amen." The deacon then gave the chalice with the words: "the Blood of
Christ, the chalice of life," and the recipient again answered, "Amen." This
giving of the chalice with the words: "the Blood of Christ," etc., is called in
the canon of Laodicea a "blessing" (euXoyeiv) The Greek commentator
Aristenus in accordance with this, and quite rightly, gives the meaning of
this canon.

394

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Diet. XCIIL, c. xix.; but reads "Deacons" instead of "Subdeacons."
The Roman Correctors point out the error.

395

CANON XXVI

They who have not been promoted [to that office] by the bishop, ought
not to adjure, either in churches or in private houses.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVI

No one shall adjure without the bishop 's promotion to that office.

BALSAMON

Some were in the habit of "adjuring," that is catechizing the unbelievers,
who had never received the imposition of the bishop's hands for that
purpose; and when they were accused of doing so, contended that as they
did not do it in church but only at home, they could not be considered as
deserving of any punishment, For this reason the Fathers rule that even to
"adjure" (ecpopKi^eiv) is an ecclesiastical ministry, and must not be
executed by anyone who shall not have been promoted thereto by a
bishop. But the "Exorcist" must be excepted who has been promoted by a
Chorepiscopus, for he can indeed properly catechize although not
promoted by a bishop; for from Canon X. of Antioch we learn that even a
Chorepiscopus can make an Exorcist.

Zonaras notes that from this canon it appears that "Chorepiscopi are
considered to be in the number of bishops."

VAN ESPEN

396

"Promoted" (7tpooc%0e<;Toc<;) by the bishops, by which is signified a mere
designation or appointment, in conformity with the Greek discipline
which never counted exorcism among the orders, but among the simple
ministries which were committed to certain persons by the bishops, as
Morinus proves at length in his work on Orders (De Ordinationibus, Pars
III., Exodus XIV., cap. ij.).

Double is the power of devils over men, the one part internal the other
external. The former is when they hold the soul captive by vice and sin.
The latter when they disturb the exterior and interior senses and lead
anyone on to fury. Those who are subject to the interior evils are the
Catechumens and Penitents, and those who are subject to the exterior are
the Energumens. Whoever are occupied with the freeing from the power of
the devil of either of these kinds, by prayers, exhortations, and exorcisms,
are said "to exorcise" them; which seems to be what Balsamon means
when he says — "'exorcise' that is' to catechize the unbelievers.'" Vide
this matter more at length in Ducange's Glossary (Gloss., s. 5:Exorcizare).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. LXIX. c. ij., Isidore's version.

397

CANON XXVII

Neither they of the priesthood, nor clergymen, nor laymen, who are
invited to a love feast, may take away their portions, for this is to cast
reproach on the ecclesiastical order.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVII

A clergyman invited to a love feast shall carry nothing away with him; for
this would bring his order into shame.

HEFELE

Van Espen translates: "no one holding any office in the Church, be he
cleric or layman," and appeals to the fact that already in early times among
the Greeks many held offices in the Church without being ordained, as do
now our sacristans and acolytes. I do not think, however, with Van Espen,
that by "they of the priesthood" is meant in general any one holding office
in the Church, but only the higher ranks of the clergy, priests and deacons,
as in the preceding twenty-fourth canon the presbyters and deacons alone
are expressly numbered among the iepocTiKoi<; and distinguished from the
other (minor) clerics. And afterwards, in canon XXX., there is a similar
mention of three different grades, lepocxiKoi, K^ripiKoi, and aoKrytai.

The taking away of the remains of the agape is here forbidden, because, on
the one hand, it showed covetousness, and, on the other, was perhaps
considered a profanation.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
ParsI.,Dist. XLIL, c. iij.

398

CANON xxvm

It is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's
Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of
God.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

Beds shall not be set up in churches, nor shall love feasts be held there.

HEFELE

Eusebius (H. E., Lib. IX., Cap. X.) employs the expression icupiocKa in
the same sense as does this canon as identical with churches. The
prohibition itself, however, here given, as well as the preceding canon,
proves that as early as the time of the Synod of Laodicea, many
irregularities had crept into the agape. For the rest, this Synod was not in a
position permanently to banish the usage from the Church; for which
reason the Trullan Synod in its seventy-fourth canon repeated this rule
word for word.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Disk XLIL, civ.

399

CANON XXIX

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on
that day, rather honoring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as
Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema
from Christ.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIX

A Christian shall not stop work on the Sabbath, but on the Lords Day.

BALSAMON

Here the Fathers order that no one of the faithful shall stop work on the
Sabbath as do the Jews, but that they should honor the Lord's Day; on
account of the Lord's resurrection, and that on that day they should
abstain from manual labor and go to church. But thus abstaining from work
on Sunday they do not lay down as a necessity, but they add, "if they
can." For if through need or any other necessity any one worked on the
Lord's day this was not reckoned against him.

400

CANON XXX

None of the priesthood, nor clerics [of lower rank] nor ascetics, nor any
Christian or layman, shall wash in a bath with women; for this is the
greatest reproach among the heathen.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXX

It is an abomination to bathe with women.

This canon was renewed by the Synod in Trullo, canon lxxvij.

Zonaras explains that the bathers were entirely nude and hence arose the
objection which was also felt by the heathen.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. LXXXI, c. xxviij.

401

CANON XXXI

It is riot lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give
our sons and daughters to them; but rather to take of them, if they promise
to become Christians.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXI

It is not right to give children in marriage to heretics, but they should be
received if they promise to become Christians.

VAN ESPEN

By this canon the faithful are forbidden to contract marriage with heretics
or to join their children in such; for, as both Balsamon and Zonaras remark,
"they imbue them with their errors, and lead them to embrace their own
perverse opinions."

402

CANON XXXII

It is unlawful to receive the eulogiae of heretics, for they are rather
aXoyioci [i.e., fol-lies], than eulogiae [i.e., blessings].

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXII

The blessings of heretics are cursings.

To keep the Latin play upon the words the translator has used
benedictions and maledictiones, but at the expense of the accuracy of
translation.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars IL., Causa II., Quaest. I., Can. lxvj.

403

CANON xxxm

No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIH

Thou shalt not pray with heretics or schismatics.

VAN ESPEN

The underlying principle of this canon is the same as the last, for as the
receiving of the Eulogiae which were sent by heretics as a the same
communion, and therefore to be sign of communion, signified a communion
avoided. This is also set forth in Apostolical with them in religious
matters, so the sharing Canon number 45:with them common prayer is a
declaration

404

CANON XXXIV

No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs,
that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for
they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be
anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIV

Whoso honors an heretical pseudo-martyr let him be anathema.

HEFELE

This canon forbids the honoring of martyrs not belonging to the orthodox
church. The number of Montanist martyrs of Phrygia was probably the
occasion of this canon.

The phrase which I have translated "to those who formerly were heretics"
has caused great difficulty to all translators and scarcely two agree.
Hammond reads "those who have been reputed to have been heretics;" and
with him Fulton agrees, but wrongly (as I think) by omitting the "to."
Lambert translates "to those who before were heretics" and correctly.
With him agrees Van Espen, thus, vel eos qui prius hereticifuere.

405

CANON XXXV

Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke
angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any
one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for
he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over
to idolatry.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXV

Whoso calls assemblies in opposition to those of the Church and names
angels, is near to idolatry and let him be anathema.

VAN ESPEN

Whatever the worship of angels condemned by this canon may have been,
one thing is manifest, that it was a species of idolatry, and detracted from
the worship due to Christ.

Theodoret makes mention of this superstitious cult in his exposition of the
Text of St. Paul, Colossians 2:18, and when writing of its condemnation
by this synod he says, "they were leading to worship angels such as were
defending the Law; for, said they, the Law was given through angels. And
this vice lasted for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore it was that
the synod which met at Laodicea in Phrygia, prohibited by a canon, that
prayer should be offered to angels, and even today an oratory of St.
Michael can be seen among them, and their neighbors."

In the Capitular of Charlemagne, A.D 789 (cap. xvi.), it is said, "In that
same council (Laodicea) it was ordered that angels should not be given
unknown names, and that such should not be affixed to them, but that

406

only they should be named by the names which we have by authority.
These are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael." And then is subjoined the present
canon. The canon forbids "to name" (ovouxx^eiv) angels, and this was
understood as meaning to give them names instead of to call upon them by
name.

Perchance the authors of the Capitular had in mind the Roman Council
under Pope Zachary, A.D. 745, against Aidebert, who was found to
invoke by name eight angels in his prayers.

It should be noted that some Latin versions of great authority and
antiquity read angulos for angelos. This would refer to doing these
idolatrous rites in corners, hiddenly, secretly, occulte as in the Latin. But
this reading, though so respectable in the Latin, has no Greek authority for
it.

This canon has often been used in controversy as condemning the cultus
which the Catholic Church has always given to the angels, but those who
would make such a use of this canon should explain how these
interpretations can be consistent with the cultus of the Martyrs so
evidently approved by the same council; and how this canon came to be
accepted by the Fathers of the Second Council of Nice, if it condemned the
then universal practice of the Church, East and West. Cf. Forbes,
Considerationes Modestoe.

407

CANON XXXVI

They who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians,
enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers; nor shall they make what are
called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear
such, we command to be cast out of the Church.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVI.

Whoso will be priest must not be a magician, nor one who uses
incantations, or mathematical or astrological charms, nor a putter on of
amulets

Some interesting and valuable information on charms will be found in
Ducange (Glossarium, s. 5:Phylacterea).

BALSAMON

"Magicians" are those who for any purpose call Satan to their aid.
"Enchanters" are those who sing charms or incantations, and through them
draw demons to obey them. "Mathematicians" are they who hold the
opinion that the celestial bodies rule the universe, and that all earthly
things are ruled by their influence. "Astrologers" are they who divine by
the stars through the agency of demons, and place their faith in them.

VAN ESPEN

Zonaras also notes that the science of mathematics or astronomy is not at
all hereby forbidden to the clergy, but the excess and abuse of that science,

408

which even more easily may happen in the case of clergymen and
consecrated persons than in that of laymen.

CANON xxxvn

It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics,
nor to feast together with them.

CANON xxxvm

IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be
partakers of their impiety.

409

CANON XXXLX

IT is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of
their godlessness.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XXXVIL, XXXVIH, AND XXXIX

Thou shalt not keep feasts with Hebrews of heretics, nor receive festival
offerings from them.

BALSAMON

Read canon 70:and canon lxxj. of the Holy Apostles, and Canon lx of the
Synod of Carthage.

ARISTENUS.

Light hath no communion with darkness. Therefore no Christian should
celebrate a feast with heretics or Jews, neither should he receive anything
connected with these feasts such as azymes and the like.

410

CANON XL.

Bishops called to a synod must not be guilty of contempt, but must
attend, and either teach, or be taught, for the reformation of the Church
and of others. And if such an one shall be guilty of contempt, he will
condemn himself, unless he be detained by ill health.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL

Whoso summoned to a synod shall spurn the invitation, unless hindered by
the force of circumstances, shall not be free from blame.

HEFELE

By avcopoc^ioc illness is commonly understood, and Dionysius Exiguus
and Isidore translated it, the former oegritudinem, and the latter
infirmitatem. But Balsamon justly remarks that the term has a wider
meaning, and, besides cases of illness includes other unavoidable
hindrances or obstacles.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XVIIL, c. v.

411

CANON XLI

None of the priesthood nor of the clergy may go on a journey, without
the bidding of the Bishop.

CANON XLII

No N E of the priesthood nor of the clergy may travel without letters
canonical.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XLI. AND XLII

No clergyman shall undertake a journey without canonical letters or unless
he is ordered to do so.

VAN ESPEN

(On Canon xli.)

It is well known that according to the true discipline of the Church no one
should be ordained unless he be attached to some church, which as an
ecclesiastical soldier he shall fight for and preserve. As, then, a secular
soldier cannot without his prefect's bidding leave his post and go to
another, so the canons decree that no one in the ranks of the ecclesiastical
military can travel about except at the bidding of the bishop who is in
command of the army. A slight trace of this discipline is observed even

412

today in the fact that priests of other dioceses are not allowed to celebrate
unless they are provided with Canonical letters or testimonials from their
own bishops.

(On Canon xlii.)

The whole subject of Commendatory and other letters is treated of in the
note to Canon VIII. of the Council of Antioch.

Canon xlj. is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars 111., Dist. V., De Consecrat, can. xxxvj.

Canon xlij. is appended to the preceding, but, curiously enough, limited to
laymen, reading as follows: "a layman also without canonical letters," that
is "formed letters," should not travel anywhere. The Roman Correctors
remark that in the Greek order this last is canon xli., and the former part of
Gratian's canon, canon xlij. of the Greek, but such is not the order of the
Greek in Zonaras nor in Balsamon. The correctors add that in neither
canon is there any mention made of laymen, nor in Dionysius's version;
the Prisca, however, read for canon xlj., "It is not right for a minister of the
altar, even for a layman, to travel, etc."

413

CANON XLIH

The subdeacons may not leave the doors to engage in the prayer, even for
a short time.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIH

A subdeacon should not leave the gates, even for a short time, to pray.

On this canon the commentators find nothing to say in addition to their
remarks on Canons xxj., and xxij., except that the "prayer" is not their own
private prayer, but the prayer of the Liturgy. It has struck me that
possibly when them was no deacon to sing the litany outside the Holy
Gates while the priest was going on with the holy action within,
subdeacons may have left their places at the doors, assumed the deacon's
stole and done his part of the office, and that it was to prevent this abuse
that this canon was enacted, the "prayer" being the litany. But as this is
purely my own suggestion it is probably valueless.

414

CANON XLIV

Women may not go to the altar.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIV

The altar must not be approached by women.

VAN ESPEN

The discipline of this canon was often renewed even in the Latin Church,
and therefore Balsamon unjustly attacks the Latins when he says; "Among
the Latins women go without any shame up to the altar whenever they
wish," For the Latins have forbidden and do forbid this approach of
women to the altar no less than the Greeks; and look upon the contrary
custom as an abuse sprung of the insolence of the women and of the
negligence of bishops and pastors.

ZONARAS

If it is prohibited to laymen to enter the Sanctuary by the lxixth canon of
the Sixth synod [i.e. Quinisext], much more are women forbidden to do so
who are unwillingly indeed, but yet truly, polluted by the monthly flux of
blood.

415

CANON XLV

[Candidates] for baptism are not to be received after the second week in
Lent.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLV

After two weeks of Lent no one must be admitted for illumination, for all
such should fast from its beginning.

VAN ESPEN

To the understanding of this canon it must be remembered that such of the
Gentiles as desired to become Catholics and to be baptized, at first were
privately instructed by the catechists. After this, having acquired some
knowledge of the Christian religion, they were admitted to the public
instructions given by the bishop in church; and were therefore called
Audientes and for the first time properly- speaking Catechumens. But
when these catechumens had been kept in this rank a sufficient time and
had been there tried, they were allowed to go up to the higher grade called
Genuflectentes.

And when their exercises had been completed in this order they were
brought by the catechists who had had the charge of them, to the bishop,
that on the Holy Sabbath [Easter Even] they might receive baptism, and
the catechumens gave their names at the same time, so that they might be
set down for baptism at the coming Holy Sabbath.

416

Moreover we learn from St. Augustine (Serm. xiii., Ad Neophitos,) that
the time for the giving in of the names was the beginning of Lent.

This council therefore in this canon decrees that such as do not hand in
their names at the beginning of Lent, but after two weeks are past, shall
not be admitted to baptism on the next Holy Sabbath.

417

CANON XLVI.

They who are to be baptized must learn the faith [Creed] by heart, and
recite it to the bishop, or to the presbyters, on the fifth day of the week.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVI

Vide infra.

HEFELE

It is doubtful whether by the Thursday of the text was meant only the
Thursday of Holy Week, or every Thursday of the time during which the
catechumens received instruction. The Greek commentators are in favor of
the latter, but Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, and after them Bingham, are,
and probably rightly, in favor of the former meaning. This canon was
repeated by the Trullan Synod in its seventy-eighth canon.

418

CANON XLVII

They who are baptized in sickness and afterwards recover, must learn the
Creed by heart and know that the Divine gifts have been vouchsafed them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XL VI. AND XL VII

Whoso is baptized by a bishop or presbyter let him recite the faith on the
fifth feria of the week. Also anyone baptized clinically a short while
afterwards.

BALSAMON

Some unbelievers were baptized before they had been catechized, by
reason of the urgency of the illness. Now some thought that as their
baptism did not follow their being carechumens, they ought to be
catechized and baptized over again. And in support of this opinion they
urged Canon XII. of Neocaesarea, which does not permit one clinically
baptized to become a priest rashly. For this reason it is that the Fathers
decree that such an one shall not be baptized a second time, but as soon as
he gets well he shall learn the faith and the mystery of baptism, and to
appreciate the divine gifts he has received, viz., the confession of the one
true God and the remission of sins which comes to us in holy baptism.

419

CANON XLVm

They who are baptized must after Baptism be anointed with the heavenly
chrism, and be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVIH

Those illuminated should after their baptism be anointed.

VAN ESPEN

That this canon refers to the anointing with chrism on the forehead of the
baptized, that is to say of the sacrament of confirmation, is the unanimous
opinion of the Greek commentators, and Balsamon notes that this
anointing is not simply styled "chrism "but "the heavenly chrism," viz.:
"that which is sanctified by holy prayers and through the invocation of
the Holy Spirit; and those who are anointed therewith, it sanctifies and
makes partakers of the kingdom of heaven."

AUBESPINE.

(Lib. L, Observat. cap. xv.)

Formerly no one was esteemed worthy of the name Christian or reckoned
among the perfect who had not been confirmed and endowed with the gift
of the Holy Ghost.

420

The prayers for the consecration of the Holy Chrism according to the rites
of the East and of the West should be carefully read by the student. Those
of the East are found in the Euchologion, and those of the West in the
Pontificale Romanum, De Officio in feria 5:Coena Domini.

421

CANON XLIX.

During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day
and on the Lord's Day only.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIX

In Lent the offering should be made only on the Sabbath and on the Lord's
day.

HEFELE

This canon, which was repeated by the Trullan Synod in its fifty- second
canon, orders that on ordinary week days during Lent, only a Missa
Proesanctificatorum should take place, as is still the custom with the
Greeks on all days of penitence and mourning, when it appears to them
unsuitable to have the full liturgy, and as Leo Allatius says, for this
reason, that the consecration is a joyful act. A comparison of the above
sixteenth canon, however, shows that Saturday was a special exception.

To the Saturdays and Sundays mentioned by Hefele must be added the
feast of the Annunciation, which is always solemnized with a full
celebration of the Liturgy, even when it falls upon Good Friday.

422

CANON L

The fast must not be broken on the fifth day of the last week in Lent [i.e.,
on Maunday Thursday], and the whole of Lent be dishonored; but it is
necessary to fast during all the Lenten season by eating only dry meats.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON L

It is not right on the fifth feria of the last week of Lent to break the fast, and
thus spoil the whole of Lent; but the whole of Lent should be kept with
fasting on dry food.

That long before the date of the Quinisext Synod the fasting reception of
the Holy Eucharist was the universal law of the Church no one can doubt
who has devoted the slightest study to the point. To produce the evidence
here would be out of place, but the reader may be referred to the excellent
presentation of it in Cardinal Bona's De Rebus Liturgicis.

I shall here cite but one passage, from St. Augustine:

"It is clear that when the disciples first received the body and blood of the
Lord they had not been fasting. Must we then censure the Universal
Church because the sacrament is everywhere partaken of by persons
fasting? Nay, verily; for from that time it pleased the Holy Spirit to
appoint, for the honor of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord
should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a
Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally
observed. For the fact that the Lord instituted the sacrament after other
food had been partaken of does not prove that brethren should come
together to partake of that sacrament after having dined or supped, or
imitate those whom the Apostle reproved and corrected for not

423

distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary meal. The
Savior, indeed, in order to commend the depths of that mystery more
affectingly to his disciples, was pleased to impress it on their hearts and
memories by making its institution his last act before going from them to
his passion. And, therefore, he did not prescribe the order in which it was
to be observed, reserving this to be done by the Apestles, through whom
he intended to arrange all things pertaining to the churches. Had he
appointed that the sacrament should be always partaken of after other
food, I believe that no one would have departed from that practice. But
when the Apostle, speaking of this sacrament, says, 'Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any
man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto
condemnation,' he immediately adds, 'And the rest will I set in order when
I come.' Whence we are given to understand that, since it was too much
for him to prescribe completely in an epistle the method observed by the
Universal Church throughout the world it was one of the things set in
order by him in person; for we find its observance uniform amid all the
variety of other customs." In fact the utter absurdity of the attempt to
maintain the opposite cannot better be seen than in reading Kingdon's
Fasting Communion, an example of special pleading and disingenuousness
rarely equaled even in controversial theological literature. A brief but
crushing refutation of the position taken by that writer will be found in an
appendix to a pamphlet by H. P. Liddon, Evening Communions contrary
to the Teaching and Practice of the Church in all Ages.

But while this is true, it is also true that in some few places the custom
had lingered on of making Maundy Thursday night an exception to this
rule, and of having then a feast, in memory of our Lord's Last Supper, and
after this having a celebration of the Divine Mysteries. This is the custom
which is prohibited by this canon, but it is manifest both from the wording
of the canon itself and from the remarks of the Greek commentators that
the custom was condemned not because it necessitated an unfasting
reception of the Holy Eucharist, but because it connoted a feast which was
a breaking of the Lenten fast and a dishonor to the whole of the holy
season.

424

It is somewhat curious and a trifle amusing to read Zonaras gravely arguing
the point as to whether the drinking of water is forbidden by this canon
because it speaks of "dry meats," which he decides in the negative!

BALSAMON

Those, therefore, who without being ill, fast on oil and shell-fish, do
contrary to this law; and much more they who eat on the fourth and sixth
ferias fish.

425

CANON LI

The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but
commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and
Lord's days.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LI

Commemorations of Martyrs shall only be held on Lord's days and
Sabbaths.

By this canon all Saints-days are forbidden to be observed in Lent on the
days on which they fall, but must be transferred to a Sabbath or else to the
Sunday, when they can be kept with the festival service of the full liturgy
and not with the penitential incompleteness of the Mass of the
Presanctified. Compare canon 49 of this Synod, and canon lij. of the
Quinisext Council.

BALSAMON

The whole of Lent is a time of grief for our sins, and the memories of the
Saints are not kept except on the Sabbaths.

Van Espen remarks how in old calendars there are but few Saints-days in
those months in which Lent ordinarily falls, and that the multitude of days
now kept by the Roman ordo are mostly of modern introduction.

426

CANON LII.

Marriages and birthday feasts are not to be celebrated in Lent.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LH

Marriage shall not be celebrated in Lent, nor birthdays.

HEFELE.

By "birthday feasts" in this canon the natalitia martyrum is not to be
understood as in the preceding canon, but the birthday feasts of princes.
This, as well as the preceding rule, was renewed in the sixth century by
Bishop Martin of Bracara, now Braga, in PortuGalatians

427

CANON LIII

Christians, when they attend weddings, must not join in wanton dances,
but modestly dine or breakfast, as is becoming to Christians.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIII

It is unsuitable to dance or leap at weddings.

VAN ESPEN

This canon does not call for explanation it for re reflection, and greatly it is
to be desired that it should be observed by Christians, and that through
like improprieties, wedding-days, which should be days of holy joy and
blessing, be not turned, even to the bride and groom themselves, into days
of cursing. Moreover the Synod of Trent admonishes bishops (Sess. xxiv.,
De Reform. Mat., cap. x.) to take care that at weddings there be only that
which is modest and proper.

428

CANON LIV

Members of the priesthood and of the clergy must not witness the plays
at weddings or banquets; but, before the players enter, they must rise and
depart.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIV

Priests and clerics should leave before the play.

ARISTENUS.

Christians are admonished to feast modestly when they go to weddings
and not to dance nor pocXXi^eiv, that is to clap their hands and make a
noise with them. For this is unworthy of the Christian standing. But
consecrated persons must not see the play at weddings, but before the
thymelici begin, they must go out.

Compare with this Canons XXIV. and LI., of the Synod in Trullo.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars III., De But Consecrat. Dist. v., can. xxxvij.

429

CANON LV

Neither members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen,
may club together for drinking entertainments.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LV

Neither a layman nor a cleric shall celebrate a club feast.

These meals, the expenses of which were defrayed by a number clubbing
together and sharing the cost, were called "symbola" by Isidore, and by
Melinus and Crabbe "comissalia," although the more ordinary form is
"commensalia" or "comessalia." Cf. Ducange Gloss., s.v. Commensalia
and Confertum.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XLIV., c. 10: (Isidore's version), and c. xij., (Martin of
Braga's version).

430

CANON LVI

Presbyters may not enter and take their seats in the bema before the
entrance of the Bishop: but they must enter with the Bishop, unless he be
at home sick, or absent.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVI

A presbyter shall not enter the bema before the bishop, nor sit down.

It is difficult to translate this canon without giving a false idea of its
meaning. It does not determine the order of dignity in an ecclesiastical
procession, but something entirely different, viz., it provides that when
the bishop enters the sanctuary he should not be alone and walk into a
place already occupied, but that he should have with him, as a guard of
honor, the clergy. Whether these should walk before or after him would be
a mere matter of local custom, the rule juniores priores did not universally
prevail.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XCV., can. viij.

431

CANON LVII

Bishops must not be appointed in villages or country districts, but
visitors; and those who have been already appointed must do nothing
without the consent of the bishop of the city. Presbyters, in like manner,
must do nothing without the consent of the bishop.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVII

A bishop shall not be established in a village or in the country, but a
periodeutes. But should one be appointed he shall not perform any function
without the bishop of the city.

On the whole subject of Chorepiscopi see the Excursus to Canon VIII. of
Nice, in this volume.

HEFELE

Compare the eighth and tenth canons of the Synod of Antioch of 341, the
thirteenth of the Synod of Ancyra, and the second clause of the sixth
canon of the Synod of Sardica. The above canon orders that from
henceforth, in the place of the rural bishops, priests of higher rank shall act
as visitors of the country dioceses and country clergy. Dionysius Exiguus,
Isidore, the Greek commentators, Van Espen, Remi Ceillier, Neander, and
others thus interpret this canon; but Herbst, in the Tubingen Review,
translates the word (TtepioSeiiToci) not visitors but physicians —
physicians of the soul, — and for this he appeals to passages from the
Fathers of the Church collected by Suicer in his Thesaurus .

432

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Dist. LXXX., c. v.

433

CANON LVm

The Oblation must not be made by bishops or presbyters in any private
houses.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVIH

Neither a bishop nor a presbyter shall make the offering in private houses.

VAN ESPEN

By "the oblation" here is intended the oblation of the unbloody sacrifice
according to the mind of the Greek interpreters. Zonaras says: "The
faithful can pray to God and be intent upon their prayers everywhere,
whether in the house, in the field, or in any place they possess: but to
offer or perform the oblation must by no means be done except in a church
and at an altar."

434

CANON LIX

No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books
may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and
New Testaments.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIX

Psalms of private origin, or books uncanonical are not to be sung in
temples; but the canonical writings of the old and new testaments.

HEFELE

Several heretics, for instance Bardesanes, Paul of Samosata, and
Apollinaris — had composed psalms, i.e., Church hymns. The Synod of
Laodicea forbade the use of any composed by private individuals, namely
all unauthorized Church hymns. Luft remarks that by this it was not
intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is
known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual
Christians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, came into use in
the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished.

This idea was greatly exaggerated by some Gallicans in the seventeenth
century who wished that all the Antiphons, etc., should be in the words of
Holy Scripture. A learned but somewhat distorted account of this whole
matter will be found in the Institutions Liturgiques by Dom Prosper
Gueranger, tome ij., and a shorter but more temperate account in Dr.
Batiffol's Histoire du Breviaire Romain, Chap vi.

435

CANON LX

[N. B. — This Canon is of most questionable genuineness.]

These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis
of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5,
Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of
the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11,
Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book
of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of
Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and
Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according
to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven
Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of
Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the
Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the
Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the
Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LX

But of the new, the four Gospels — of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John;
Acts; Seven Catholic epistles, viz. of James one, of Peter two, of John three,
of Jude one; of Paul fourteen, viz.: to the Romans one, to the Corinthians
two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Phillipians one, to
the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Hebrews one, to
Timothy two, to Titus one, and to Philemon one.

436

It will be noticed that while this canon has often been used for
controversial purposes it really has little or no value in this connection, for
the absence of the Revelation of St. John from the New Testament to all
orthodox Christians is, to say the least, as fatal to its reception as an
ecumenical definition of the canon of Holy Scripture, as the absence of the
book of Wisdom, etc., from the Old Testament is to its reception by those
who accept the books of what we may call for convenience the Greek
canon, as distinguished from the Hebrew, as canonical.

We may therefore leave this question wholly out of account, and merely
consider the matter from the evidence we possess.

In 1777 Spittler published a special treatise to shew that the list of
scriptural books was no part of the original canon adopted by Laodicea.
Hefele gives the following resume of his argument:

(a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of the
Laodicean decrees. It might, indeed, be said with Dallaeus and Van Espen,
that Dionysius omitted this list of the books of Scripture because in
Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I. was in general
use.

(b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful
translator, this sixtieth canon is also omitted by John of Antioch, one of
the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of canons, who could have
had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission.

(c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has the
fifty-ninth, has also not included in his collection the sixtieth canon so
nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian translation appear at first to
have had this canon. Herbst, in the Tubingen Review, also accedes to these
arguments of Spittler' s, as did Fuchs and others before him. Mr. Ffoulkes
in his article on the Council of Laodicea in Smith and Cheetham's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities at length attempts to refute all
objections, and affirms the genuineness of the list, put his conclusions can
hardly be accepted when the careful consideration and discussion of the
matter by Bishop Westcott is kept in mind. {History of the Canon of the
New Testament, Hid. Period, chapter 2:[p. 428 of the 4th Edition.])

437

THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

A.D. 381.

Emperor. — THEODOSIUS.
Pope. — DAMASUS.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

The Creed and Epiphanius's two Creeds with an Introductory Note.

Historical Excursus on the introduction of the words "and the Son."

Historical Note on the lost Tome of this council.

Synodal Letter to the Emperor.

Introduction on the number of the Canons.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Canon I., on the condemned heresies.

Excursus on the Authority of the Second Ecumenical Council.

Synodical Letter of the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 382.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

In the whole history of the Church there is no council 'which bristles with
such astonishing facts as the First Council of Constantinople. It is one of
the "undisputed General Councils," one of the four which St. Gregory said
he revered as he did the four holy Gospels, and he would be rash indeed
who denied its right to the position it has so long occupied; and yet

1. It was not intended to be an Ecumenical Synod at all.

438

2. It was a local gathering of only one hundred and fifty bishops.

3. It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it.

4. No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the
person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.

5. It was a council of Saints, Cardinal Orsi, the Roman Historian, says:
"Besides St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Peter of Sebaste, there were also at
Constantinople on account of the Synod many other Bishops, remarkable
either for the holiness of their life, or for their zeal for the faith, or for their
learning, or for the eminence of their Sees, as St. Amphilochius of Iconium,
Helladius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia,
Diodorus of Tarsus, St. Pelagius of Laodicea, St. Eulogius of Edessa,
Acacius of Berea, Isidorus of Cyrus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of
Cesarea in Palestine, Vitus of Carres, Dionysius of Diospolis, Abram of
Bathes, and Antiochus of Samosata, all three Confessors, Bosphorus of
Colonia, and Otreius of Melitina, and various others whose names appear
with honor in history. So that perhaps there has not been a council, in
which has been found a greater number of Confessors and of Saints."

6. It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who
was bishop not in communion with Rome, who died during its session and
was styled a Saint in the panegyric delivered over him and who has since
been canonized as a Saint of the Roman Church by the Pope.

7. Its second president was St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was at that time
liable to censure for a breach of the canons which forbade his translation to
Constantinople.

8. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome,
and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.

9. Its canons were not placed in their natural position after those of Nice
in the codex which was used at the Council of Chalcedon, although this
was an Eastern codex.

10. Its Creed was not read nor mentioned, so far as the acts record, at the
Council of Ephesus, fifty years afterwards.

439

1 1 . Its title to being (as it undoubtedly is) the Second of the Ecumenical
Synods rests upon its Creed having found a reception in the whole world.
And now — mirabile dictu — an English scholar comes forward, ready to
defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople never set
forth any creed at all!

440

THE HOLY CREED WHICH THE 150 HOLY FATHERS SET
FORTH, WHICH IS CONSONANT WITH THE HOLY AND GREAT

SYNOD OF NICE.

{Found in all the Collections in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.)

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

The reader should know that Tillemont (Memoires, t. ix., art. 78 in the
treatise on St. Greg. Naz.) broached the theory that the Creed adopted at
Constantinople was not a new expansion of the Nicene but rather the
adoption of a Creed already in use. Hefele is of the same opinion (Hist, of
the Councils, II., p. 349). and the learned Professor of Divinity in the
University of Jena, Dr. Lipsius, says, of St. Epiphanius: "Though not
himself present at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, A.D: 381,
which ensured the triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental
Churches, his shorter confession of faith, which is found at the end of his
Ancoratus, and seems to have been the baptismal creed of the Church of
Salamis, agrees almost word for word with the Constantinopolitan
formula." (Smith and Wace, Diet. Chr. Biog., s. 5:Epiphanius). "The
Ancoratus," St. Epiphanius distinctly tells us, was written as early as
A.D. 374, and toward the end of chapter cxix., he writes as follows. "The
children of the Church have received from the holy fathers, that is from the
holy Apostles, the faith to keep, and to hand down, and to teach their
children. To these children you belong, and I beg you to receive it and pass
it on. And whilst yon teach your children these things and such as these
from the holy Scriptures, cease not to confirm and strengthen them, and
indeed all who hear you: tell them that this is the holy faith of the Holy
Catholic Church, as the one holy Virgin of God received it from the holy
Apostles of the Lord to keep: and thus every person who is in preparation
for the holy laver of baptism must learn it: they must learn it themselves,
and teach it expressly, as the one Mother of all, of you and of us,
proclaims it, saying." Then follows the Creed as on page 164.

441

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light
of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men
and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the
Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified
also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third
day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with
glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no
end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who
proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in
one, holy, (II) Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the
dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

NOTE I.

This clause had already, so far as the meaning is concerned, been added to
the Nicene Creed, years before, in correction of the heresy of Marcellus of
Ancyra, of whose heresy a statement will be found in the notes on Canon
I. of this Council. One of the creeds of the Council of Antioch in Encaeniis
(A.D. 341) reads: "and he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and he
shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, and he remaineth
God and King to all eternity."

NOTE II.

The word "Holy" is omitted in some texts of this Creed, notably in the
Latin version in the collection of Isidore Mercator. Vide Labbe, Cone, II.,
960. Cf. Creed in English Prayer-Book.

442

NOTES

THE CREED FOUND IN EPIPHANIUS'S Ancoratus (Cap. cxx.)

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, that is
of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things
were made, both in heaven and earth who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary, and was made man, was crucified also for us under Pontius
Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and on the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of the Father, and from thence he shall come again with glory to
judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And
in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the
Father; who, with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified, who spake by the prophets: in one holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look
for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. And
those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and
before he was begotten he was not, or that he was of things which are not,
or that he is of a different hypostasis or substance, or pretend that he is
effluent or changeable, these the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes.

Epiphanius thus continues:

"And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church,
the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three
hundred and ten in number."

"In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and the
ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant, you and we

443

and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together, make
this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may
proclaim and say as follows:"

Epiphanius then gives this creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, invisible
and visible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of God
the Father, only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father, God of
God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of
one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both which
be in heaven and in earth, whether they be visible or invisible. Who for us
men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, that is to say
was conceived perfectly through the Holy Ghost of the holy ever- virgin
Mary, and was made man, that is to say a perfect man, receiving a soul,
and body, and intellect, and all that make up a man, but without sin, not
from human seed, nor [that he dwelt] in a man, but taking flesh to himself
into one holy entity; not as he inspired the prophets and spake and
worked [in them], but was perfectly made man, for the Word was made
flesh; neither did he experience any change, nor did he convert his divine
nature into the nature of man, but united it to his one holy perfection and
Divinity.

For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, not two, the same is God, the same is
Lord, the same is King. He suffered in the flesh, and rose again, and
ascended into heaven in the same body, and with glory he sat down at the
right hand of the Father, and in the same body he will come in glory to
judge both the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no
end.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Law, and preached in
the Prophets, and descended at Jordan, and spake in the Apostles, and
indwells the Saints. And thus we believe in him, that he is the Holy Spirit,
the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Comforter, uncreate,
who proceedeth from the Father, receiving of the Son (eK xov IIocTpbc;
eK7top£i)6u.£vov koci eK %ov> Yio-u Xocu.pocv6jx£vov), and believed on.
(koci Tioxe'uou.evov, which the Latin version gives in quern credimus; and
proceeds to insert, Proeterea credimus in unam, etc. It certainly looks as if
it had read 7ticrce\)DO|j,ev, and had belonged to the following phrase.)

444

[We believe] in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. And in one baptism
of penitence, and in the resurrection of the dead, and the just judgment of
souls and bodies, and in the Kingdom of heaven and in life everlasting.

And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or when
the Holy Ghost was not, or that either was made of that which previously
had no being, or that he is of a different nature or substance, and affirm
that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and
mutation; all such the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the mother both of
you and of us, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not
confess the resurrection of the dead, as well as all heresies which are not in
accord with the true faith.

Finally, you and your children thus believing and keeping the
commandments of this same faith, we trust that you will always pray for
us, that we may have a share and lot in that same faith and in the keeping
of these same commandments. For us make your intercessions you and all
who believe thus, and keep the commandments of the Lord in our Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom, glory be to the Father with
the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

445

HISTORICAL EXCURSUS ON THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE
CREED OF THE WORDS "AND THE SON."

The introduction into the Nicene Creed of the words "and the Son"
(Filioque) has given rise to, or has been the pretext for, such bitter reviling
between East and West (during which many statements unsupported by
fact have become more or less commonly believed) that I think it well in
this place to set forth as dispassionately as possible the real facts of the
case. I shall briefly then give the proof of the following propositions:

1. That no pretense is made by the West that the words in dispute formed
part of the original creed as adopted at Constantinople, or that they now
form part of that Creed.

2. That so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in
direct opposition to his wishes and command.

3. That it never was intended by the words to assert that there were two
Ap%oci in the Trinity, nor in any respect on this point to differ from the
teaching of the East.

4. That it is quite possible that the words were not an intentional insertion
at all.

5. And finally that the doctrine of the East as set forth by St. John
Damascene is now and always has been the doctrine of the West on the
procession of the Holy Spirit, however much through
ecclesiastico-political contingencies this fact may have become obscured.

With the truth or falsity of the doctrine set forth by the Western addition
to the creed this work has no concern, nor even am I called upon to treat
the historical question as to when and where the expression "and the Son"
was first used. For a temperate and eminently scholarly treatment of this
point from a Western point of view, I would refer the reader to Professor
Swete's On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
In J. M. Neale's History of the Holy Eastern Church will be found a
statement from the opposite point of view. The great treatises of past

446

years I need not mention here, but may be allowed to enter a warning to
the reader, that they were often written in the period of hot controversy,
and make more for strife than for peace, magnifying rather than lessening
differences both of thought and expression.

Perhaps, too, I may be allowed here to remind the readers that it has been
said that while "ex Patre Filioque procedens" in Latin does not necessitate
a double source of the Holy Spirit, the expression eK7topet)6(j,evov ek
xov 7tocTpb<; koci ek xov Yicu does. On such a point I am not fit to give
an opinion, but St. John Damascene does not use this expression.

1 . That no pretense is made by the West that the words in dispute ever
formed part of the creed as adopted at Constantinople is evidently proved
by the patent fact that it is printed without those words in all our
Concilias and in all our histories. It is true that at the Council of Florence it
was asserted that the words were found in a copy of the Acts of the
Seventh Ecumenical which they had, but no stress was even at that
eminently Western council laid upon the point, which even if it had been
the case would have shewn nothing with regard to the true reading of the
Creed as adopted by the Second Synod. On this point there never was nor
can be any doubt.

2. The addition was not made at the will and at the bidding of the Pope. It
has frequently been said that it was a proof of the insufferable arrogancy
of the See of Rome that it dared to tamper with the creed set forth by the
authority of an Ecumenical Synod and which had been received by the
world. Now so far from the history of this addition to the creed being a
ground of pride and complacency to the advocates of the Papal claims, it is
a most marked instance of the weakness of the papal power even in the
West.

"Baronius," says Dr. Pusey, "endeavors in vain to find any Pope, to
whom the 'formal addition' may be ascribed, and rests at last on a
statement of a writer towards the end of the 12th century, writing against
the Greeks. 'If the Council of Constantinople added to the Nicene Creed,
"in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life," and the Council of
Chalcedon to that of Constantinople, "perfect in Divinity and perfect in
Humanity, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead,
consubstantial with us as touching his manhood," and some other things as

447

aforesaid, the Bishop of the elder Rome ought not to be calumniated,
because for explanation, he added one word [that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son] having the consent of very many bishops and most learned
Cardinals.' 'For the truth of which,' says Le Quien, 'be the author
responsible!' It seems to me inconceivable, that all account of any such
proceeding, if it ever took place, should have been lost."

We may then dismiss this point and briefly review the history of the
matter.

There seems little doubt that the words were first inserted in Spain. As
early as the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo to
affirm the double procession against the Priscillianists, and in 589 by the
authority of the Third Council of Toledo the newly converted Goths were
required to sign the creed with the addition. From this time it became for
Spain the accepted form, and was so recited at the Eighth Council of
Toledo in 653, and again in 681 at the Twelfth Council of Toledo.

But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the kind
was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its original
form. The same is the case with the old Gallican Sacramentary of the viith
or viiith century.

However, there can be no doubt that its introduction spread very rapidly
through the West and that before long it was received practically
everywhere except at Rome.

In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it
three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the subject.
The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express ground that
the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made to their
formulary. Later on, the Frankish Emperor asked his bishops what was
"the meaning of the Creed according to the Latins," and Fleury gives the
result of the investigations to have been, "In France they continued to
chant the creed with the word Filioque, and at Rome they continued not to
chant it."

So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced
into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in St.
Peter' s at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on

448

the other in Greek, without the addition. This act the Greeks never forgot
during the controversy. Photius refers to it in writing to the Patriarch of
Acquileia. About two centuries later St. Peter Damian mentions them as
still in place; and about two centuries later on, Veecur, Patriarch of
Constantinople, declares they hung there still.

It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was used
at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII. acceded
to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal authority
was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared from St.
Peter's.

3. Nothing could be clearer than that the theologians of the West never had
any idea of teaching a double source of the Godhead. The doctrine of the
Divine Monarchy was always intended to be preserved, and while in the
heat of the controversy sometimes expressions highly dangerous, or at
least clearly inaccurate, may have been used, yet the intention must be
judged from the prevailing teaching of the approved theologians. And what
this was is evident from the definition of the Council of Florence, which,
while indeed it was not received by the Eastern Church, and therefore
cannot be accepted as an authoritative exposition of its views, yet
certainly must be regarded as a true and full expression of the teaching of
the West. "The Greeks asserted that when they say the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they wish to exclude
the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert
the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, as from two
principles and by two spirations, and therefore they abstain from saying
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But the Latins
affirm that they have no intention when they say the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the Father of his
prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the entire Godhead, viz.
of the Son and of the, Holy Ghost; nor do they deny that the very
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives from the
Father; nor do they teach two principles or two spirations; but they assert
that there is one only principle, one only spiration, as they have always
asserted up to this time."

449

4. It is quite possible that when these words were first used there was no
knowledge on the part of those using them that there had been made any
addition to the Creed. As I have already pointed out, the year 589 is the
earliest date at which we find the words actually introduced into the
Creed. Now there can be no doubt whatever that the Council of Toledo of
that year had no suspicion that the creed as they had it was not the creed
exactly as adopted at Constantinople. This is capable of the most ample
proof.

In the first place they declared, "Whosoever believes that there is any
other Catholic faith and communion, besides that of the Universal Church,
that Church which holds and honors the decrees of the Councils of Nice,
Constantinople, I. Ephesus, and Chalcedon, let him be anathema." After
some further anathemas in the same sense they repeat "the creed
published at the council of Nice," and next, "The holy faith which the 150
fathers of the Council of Constantinople explained, consonant with the
great Council of Nice." And then lastly, "The holy faith which the
translators of the council of Chalcedon explained." The creed of
Constantinople as recited contained the words "and from the Son." Now
the fathers at Toledo were not ignorant of the decree of Ephesus
forbidding the making of "another faith" (exepocv rciaxiv) for they
themselves cite it, as follows from the acts of Chalcedon; "The holy and
universal Synod forbids to bring forward any other faith; or to write or
believe or to teach other, or be otherwise minded. But whoso shall dare
either to expound or produce or deliver any other faith to those who wish
to be converted etc." Upon this Dr. Pusey well remarks, "It is, of course,
impossible to suppose that they can have believed any addition to the
creed to have been forbidden by the clause, and, accepting it with its
anathema, themselves to have added to the creed of Constantinople."

But while this is the case it might be that they understood exepocv of the
Ephesine decree to forbid the making of contradictory and new creeds and
not explanatory additions to the existing one. Of this interpretation of the
decree, which would seem without any doubt to be the only tenable one, I
shall treat in its proper place.

We have however further proof that the Council of Toledo thought they
were using the unaltered creed of Constantinople. In these acts we find

450

they adopted the following; "for reverence of the most holy faith and for
the strengthening of the weak minds of men, the holy Synod enacts, with
the advice of our most pious and most glorious Lord, King Recarede, that
through all the churches of Spain and Gallaecia, the symbol of faith of the
council of Constantinople, i.e. of the 150 bishops, should be recited
according to the form of the Eastern Church, etc."

This seems to make the matter clear and the next question which arises is,
How the words could have got into the Spanish creed? I venture to suggest
a possible explanation. Epiphanius tells us that in the year 378 "all the
orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together make this address
to those who come to baptism, in order that they may proclaim and say as
follows." If this is to be understood literally of course Spain was included.
Now the creed thus taught the catechumens reads as follows at the point
about which our interest centers:

Koci ei<; to ocyiov Ttve-upoc niaTevo\xe\ , ... ek. tov Ttocxpoq
eK7topet)6(j,evov koci ek tov Yico ^ocjx|3ocv6jj,evov koci niaz
euojievov, ei<; piocv KocGoXiKrrv k.t.X. Now it looks to me as if the text
had got corrupted and that there should be a full stop after
Xocu.pocv6u.evov and that TtiGxeDojxevov should be Ttiaxeuojxev. These
emendations are not necessary however for my suggestion although they
would make it more perfect, for in that case by the single omission of the
word Xocuj3ocv6|j,evov the Western form is obtained. It will be noticed that
this was some years before the Constantinopolitan Council and therefore
nothing would be more natural than that a scribe accustomed to writing the
old baptismal creed and now given the Constantinopolitan creed, so similar
to it, to copy, should have gone on and added the koci £k iov Yio-6
according to habit.

However this is a mere suggestion, I think I have shewn that there is
strong reason to believe that whatever the explanation may be, the Spanish
Church was unaware that it had added to or changed the
Constantinopolitan creed.

5. There remains now only the last point, which is the most important of
all, but which does not belong to the subject matter of this volume and
which therefore I shall treat with the greatest brevity. The writings of St.
John Damascene are certainly deemed entirely orthodox by the Easterns

451

and always have been. On the other hand their entire orthodoxy has never
been disputed in the West, but a citation from Damascene is considered by
St. Thomas as conclusive. Under these circumstances it seems hard to
resist the conclusion that the faith of the East and the West, so far as its
official setting forth is concerned, is the same and always has been. And
perhaps no better proof of the Western acceptance of the Eastern doctrine
concerning the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit can be found than the
fact that St. John Damascene has been in recent years raised by the pope
for his followers to the rank of a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Perhaps I
may be allowed to close with two moderate statements of the Western
position, the one by the learned and pious Dr. Pusey and the other by the
none less famous Bishop Pearson.

Dr. Pusey says:

"Since, however, the clause, which found its way into the Creed, was, in
the first instance, admitted, as being supposed to be part of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, and, since after it had been rooted for 200
years, it was not uprooted, for fear of uprooting also or perplexing the
faith of the people, there was no fault either in its first reception or in its
subsequent retention.

"The Greeks would condemn forefathers of their own, if they were to
pronounce the clause to be heretical. For it would be against the principles
of the Church to be in communion with an heretical body. But from the
deposition of Photius, A.D. 886 to at least A.D. 1009, East and West
retained their own expression of faith without schism.

"A.D. 1077, Theophylact did not object to the West, retaining for itself
the confession of faith contained in the words, but only excepted against
the insertion of the words in the Creed."

And Bp. Pearson, explaining Article VIII. of the Creed says: "Now
although the addition of words to the formal Creed without the consent,
and against the protestations of the Oriental Church be not justifiable; yet
that which was added is nevertheless a certain truth, and may be so used in
that Creed by them who believe the same to be a truth; so long as they
pretend it not to be a definition of that Council, but an addition or
explication inserted, and condemn not those who, out of a greater respect

452

to such synodical determinations, will admit of no such insertions, nor
speak any other language than the Scriptures and their Fathers spoke."

453

HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE LOST "TOME" OF THE SECOND

COUNCIL.

We know from the Synodical letter sent by the bishops who assembled at
Constantinople in A.D. 382 (the next year after the Second Ecumenical
Council) sent to Pope Damasus and other Western bishops, that the
Second Council set forth a "Tome," containing a statement of the doctrinal
points at issue. This letter will be found in full at the end of the treatment
of tiffs council. The Council of Cholcedon in its address to the Emperor
says: "The bishops who at Constantinople detected the taint of
Apollinarianism, communicated to the Westerns their decision in the
matter." From this we may reasonably conclude, with Tillemont, that the
lost Tome treated also of the Apollinarian heresy. It is moreover by no
means unlikely that the Creed as it has come down to us, was the
summary at the end of the Tome, and was followed by the anathemas
which now form our Canon I. It also is likely that the very accurate
doctrinal statements contained in the Letter of the Synod of 382 may be
taken almost, if not quite, verbatim from this Tome. It seems perfectly
evident that at least one copy of the Tome was sent to the West but how
it got lost is a matter on which at present we are entirely in the dark.

454

LETTER OF THE SAME HOLY SYNOD TO THE MOST PIOUS

EMPEROR THEODOSIUS THE GREAT, TO WHICH ARE

APPENDED THE CANONS ENACTED BY THEM.

(Found in Labbe, Concilia, Tom. II., 945.)

To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the Holy Synod of Bishops
assembled in Constantinople out of different Provinces.

We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established
the empire of your Piety for the common peace of the Churches and for
the support of the true Faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God,
as in duty bound we lay before your Piety the things which have been
done in the Holy Synod. When, then, we had assembled in
Constantinople, according to the letter of your Piety, we first of all
renewed our unity of heart each with the other, and then we pronounced
some concise definitions, ratifying the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and
anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up, contrary thereto.
Besides these things, we also framed certain Canons for the better ordering
of the Churches, all which we have subjoined to this our letter. Wherefore
we beseech your Piety that the decree of the Synod may be ratified, to the
end that, as you have honored the Church by your letter of citation, so
you should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May
the Lord establish your empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it
from generation to generation; and may he add unto your earthly power
the fruition of the heavenly kingdom also. May God by the prayers
(e\)%oci<; tcov ocyicov) of the Saints, show favor to the world, that you may
be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious
and beloved of God.

INTRODUCTION ON THE NUMBER OF THE CANONS.

(HEFELE, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 351.)

455

The number of canons drawn up by this synod is doubtful. The old Greek
codices and the Greek commentators of the Middle Ages, Zonaras and
Balsamon, enumerate seven; the old Latin translations — viz. the Prisca,
those by Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, as well as the Codex of Luna —
only recognize the first four canons of the Greek text, and the fact that
they agree in this point is the more important as they are wholly
independent of each other, and divide and arrange those canons of
Constantinople which they do acknowledge quite differently.

Because, however, in the Prisca the canons of Constantinople are only
placed after those of the fourth General Council, the Ballerini brothers
conclude that they were not contained at all in the oldest Greek collections
of canons, and were inserted after the Council of Chalcedon. But it was at
this very Council of Chalcedon that the first three canons of
Constantinople were read out word for word. As however, they were not
separately numbered, but were there read under the general title of
Synodicon Synodi Secundae, Fuchs concluded they were not originally in
the form in which we now possess them, but, without being divided into
numbers, formed a larger and unbroken decree, the contents of which were
divided by later copyists and translators into several different canons. And
hence the very different divisions of these canons in the Prisca, Dionysius,
and Isidore may be explained. The fact, however, that the old Latin
translations all agree in only giving the first four canons of the Greek text,
seems to show that the oldest Greek manuscripts, from which those
translations were made, did not contain the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and
that these last did not properly belong to this Synod, but were later
additions. To this must be added that the old Greek Church-historians, in
speaking of the affairs of the second General Council, only mention those
points which are contained in the first four canons, and say nothing of
what, according to the fifth, sixth, and seventh canons, had also been
decided at Constantinople. At the very least, the seventh canon cannot
have emanated from this Council, since in the sixth century John
Scholasticus did not receive it into his collection, although he adopted the
fifth and sixth. It is also missing in many other collections; and in treating
specially of this canon further on, we shall endeavor to show the time and
manner of its origin. But the fifth and sixth canons probably belong to the
Synod of Constantinople of the following year, as Beveridge, the Ballerini,

456

and others conjectured. The Greek scholiasts, Zonaras and Balsamon, and
later on Tillemont, Beveridge, Van Espen and Herbst, have given more or
less detailed commentaries on all these canons.

457

CANONS OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FATHERS WHO

ASSEMBLED AT CONSTANTINOPLE DURING THE

CONSULATE OF THOSE ILLUSTRIOUS MEN, FLAVIUS

EUCHERIUS AND FLAVIUS EVAGRIUS ON THE VII OF THE IDES

OF JULY.

The Bishops out of different provinces assembled by the grace of God in
Constantinople, on the summons of the most religious Emperor
Theodosius, have decreed as follows:

CANON I

Th e Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice
in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy
shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans,
the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi,
and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the
Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

Let the Nicene faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy.

There is a difference of reading in the list of the heretics. The reading I
have followed in the text is that given in Beveridge's Synodicon. The
Greek text, however, in Labbe, and with it agree the version of Hervetus
and the text of Hefele, reads: "the Eunomians or Anomaeans, the Arians or
Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, the Sabellians,

458

Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians." From this Dionysius only
varies by substituting "Macedonians" for "Semi-Arians." It would seem
that this was the correct reading. I, however, have followed the other as
being the more usual.

HEFELE

By the Eudoxians, whom this canon identifies with the Arians [according
to his text, vide supra,] is meant that faction who, in contradistinction to
the strict Arians or Anomaeans on one side, and the Semi-Arians on the
other side, followed the leadership of the Court Bishop Eudoxius (Bishop
of Constantinople under the Emperor Valens), and without being entirely
Anomaean, yet very decidedly inclined to the left of the Arian party —
probably claiming to represent the old and original Arianism. But this
canon makes the Semi-Arians identical with the Pneuma-tomachians, and
so far rightly, that the latter sprang from the Semi- Arian party, and
applied the Arian principle to their doctrine of the Holy Ghost. Lastly, by
the Marcellians are meant those pupils of Marcellus of Ancyra who
remained in the errors formerly propounded by him, while afterwards
others, and indeed he himself, once more acknowledged the truth.

459

EXCURSUS ON THE HERESIES CONDEMNED IN CANON I

In treating of these heresies I shall invert the order of the canon, and shall
speak of the Macedonian and Apollinarian heresies first, as being most
nearly connected with the object for which the Constantinopolitan Synod
was assembled.

THE SEMI-ARIANS, MACEDONIANS OR PNEUMATOMACHI.

Peace indeed seemed to have been secured by the Nicene decision but there
was an element of discord still extant, and so shortly afterwards as in 359
the double- synod of Rimini (Ariminum) and Selencia rejected the
expressions hemousion and homoeusion equally, and Jerome gave birth to
his famous phrase, "the world awoke to find itself Arian." The cause of
this was the weight attaching to the Semi- Arian party, which counted
among its numbers men of note and holiness, such as St. Cyril of
Jerusalem. Of the developments of this party it seems right that some
mention should be made in this place, since it brought forth the
Macedonian heresy.

(Wm. Bright, D.D., St. Leo on the Incarnation, pp. 213 et seqq.)

The Semi- Arian party in the fourth century attempted to steer a middle
course between calling the Son Consubstantial and calling him a creature.
Their position, indeed, was untenable, but several persisted in clinging to
it; and it was adopted by Macedonius, who occupied the see of
Constantinople. It was through their adoption of a more reverential
language about the Son than had been used by the old Arians, that what is
called the Macedonian heresy showed itself. Arianism had spoken both of
the Son and the Holy Spirit as creatures. The Macedonians, rising up out
of Semi- Arianism, gradually reached the Church's belief as to the
uncreated majesty of the Son, even if they retained their objection to the
homoousion as a formula. But having, in their previously Semi- Arian
position, refused to extend their own "homoiousion" to the Holy Spirit,
they afterwards persisted in regarding him as "external to the one
indivisible Godhead," Newman's Arians, p. 226; or as Tillemont says
(Mem. vi., 527), "the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was at last

460

their capital or only error." St. Athanasius, while an exile under
Constantius for the second time, "heard with pain," as he says (Ep. l:ad
Serap, 1) that "some who had left the Arians from disgust at their
blasphemy against the Son of God, yet called the Spirit a creature, and one
of the ministering spirits, differing only in degree from the Angels:" and
soon afterwards, in 362, the Council of Alexandria condemned the notion
that the Spirit was a creature, as being "no true avoidance of the detestable
Arian heresy." See "Later Treatises of St. Athanasius," p. 5. Athanasius
insisted that the Nicene Fathers, although silent on the nature of the Holy
Spirit, had by implication ranked him with the Father and the Son as an
object of belief (ad Afros, 1 1). After the death of St. Athanasius, the new
heresy was rejected on behalf of the West by Pope Damasus, who
declared the Spirit to be truly and properly from the Father (as the Son
from the Divine substance) and very God, "omnia posse et omnia nosse,
et ubique esse," coequal and adorable (Mansi, iii., 483). The Illyrian
bishops also, in 374, wrote to the bishops of Asia Minor, affirming the
consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons (Theodoret, H. E., iv., 9).
St. Basil wrote his De Spirits Sancto in the same sense (see Swete, Early
History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp. 58, 67), and in order to
vindicate this truth against the Pneumatomachi, as the Macedonians were
called by the Catholics, the Constantinopolitan recension of the Nicene
Creed added the words, "the Lord and the Life-giver, proceeding from the
Father, with the Father and the Son worshipped and glorified" etc., which
had already formed part of local Creeds in the East.

From the foregoing by Canon Bright, the reader will be able to understand
the connection between the Semi- Arians and Pneumatomachi, as well as to
see how the undestroyed heretical germs of the Semi-Asian heresy
necessitated by their development the condemnation of a second synod.

THE APOLLINARIANS.

(Philip Schaff, in Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog., s. 5:Apollinaris.)

Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy to
Christology proper, and to call the attention of the Church to the
psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity of Christ; but in his zeal

461

for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double personality, he fell into
the error of a partial denial of his true humanity. Adopting the
psychological trichotomy of Plato (a&\xa, ^v%r\, n\EV>\ia), for which he
quoted 1. Thessalonians 5:23 and Galatians 5:17, he attributed to Christ a
human body (a&\xa) and a human soul (the\|A)%r| oc^oyoqthe anima
animans which man has in common with the animal), but not a rational
spirit (vcuq n\ev\ia, yv>%r\ XoyiKT|, anima rationalist) and put in the
place of the latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the idea of a mere
connection of the Logos with the man Jesus, he wished to secure an
organic unity of rite two, and so a true incarnation; but he sought this at
the expense of the most important constituent of man. He reached only a
0eo<; oocpKocpopot; as Nestorianism only an ocv9pco7to<; 9eocp6po<;
instead of the proper 0eocvSpcoT6<; He appealed to the fact that the
Scripture says, "the Word was made flesh" — not spirit; "God was
manifest in the flesh" etc, To which Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that
in these passages the term oocp^ was used by synecdoche for the whole
human nature. In this way Apollinaris established so close a connection of
the Logos with human flesh, that all the divine attributes were transferred
to the human nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the
two merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion
of the Logos, and a worship of his flesh. He made Christ a middle being
between God and man, in whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts
human were fused in the unity of a new nature. He even ventured to
adduce created analogies, such as the mule, midway between the horse and
the ass; the gray color, a mixture of white and black; and spring, in
distinction from winter and summer. Christ, said he, is neither whole man,
nor God, but a mixture (pi^ic;) of God and man. On the other hand, he
regarded the orthodox view of a union of full humanity with a full divinity
in one person — of two wholes in one whole — as an absurdity. He called
the result of this construction ocvGpcoTtoGeot;, a sort of monstrosity, which
he put in the same category with the mythological figure of the Minotaur.
But the Apollinarian idea of the union of the Logos with a truncated
human nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster.
Starting from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, but denying the
completeness of Christ's humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which
likewise put the divine Logos in the place of rite human spirit in Christ.

462

But he strongly asserted his unchangeableness, while Arians taught his
changeableness (Tpe7tTOTr|<;).

The faith of the Church revolted against such a mutilated and stunted
humanity of Christ which necessarily involved also a merely partial
redemption. The incarnation is an assumption of the entire human nature,
sin only excluded. The evoocpKCOGK; is evocv9p<B7tr|Gi<;. To be a full and
complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man (xeXeioc, avQpcanoq).
The spirit or rational soul is the most important element in man, his
crowning glory, the seat of intelligence and freedom, and needs redemption
as well as the soul and the body; for sin has entered and corrupted all the
faculties.

In the sentence immediately preceding the above Dr. Scruff remarks "but
the peculiar Christology of Apollinaris has reappeared from time to time
in a modified shape, as isolated theological opinion." No doubt Dr. Schaff
had in mind the fathers of the so-called "Kenoticism" of today, Gess and
Ebrard, who teach, unless they have been misunderstood, that the
incarnate Son had no human intellect or rational soul (vox>c;) but that the
divine personality took its place, by being changed into it. By this last
modification, they claim to escape from tire taint of the Apollinarian
heresy.

THE EUNOMIANS OR ANOMOEANS.

(Bright, Notes on the Canons, Canon I. of I. Const.)

"The Eunomians or Anomoeans." These were the ultra-Arians, who
carried to its legitimate issue the original Arian denial of the eternity and
uncreatedness of the Son, while they further rejected what Arius had
affirmed as to the essential mysteriousness of the Divine nature (Soc, H.
E., iv., 7; comp. Athan., De Synod., 15). Their founder was Aetius, the
most versatile of theological adventurers (cf. Athan, De Synod., 31; Soc,
H. E., ii., 45; and see a summary of his career in Newman's Arians, p.
347); but their leader at the time of the Council was the dating and
indefatigable Eunomius (for whose personal characteristics, see his admirer
Philostorgius, x., 6) He, too, had gone through many vicissitudes from his

463

first employment as the secretary of Aetius, and his ordination as deacon
by Eudoxius; as bishop of Cyzicus, he had been lured into a disclosure of
his true sentiments, and then denounced as a heretic (Theod., H.. E., ii.,
29); with Aetius he had openly separated from Eudoxius as a disingenuous
time-server, and had gone into retirement at Chalcedon (Philostorg., ix., 4).
The distinctive formula of his adherents was the ' Anomoion." The Son,
they said, was not "like to the Father in essence"; even to call him simply
"like" was to obscure the fact that he was simply a creature, and, as such,
"unlike" to his Creator. In other words, they thought the Semi-Arian
"homoiousion" little better than the Catholic "homoousion": the
"homoion" of the more "respectable" Arians represented in their eyes an
ignoble reticence; the plain truth, however it might shock devout prejudice,
must be put into words which would bar all misunderstanding: the Son
might be called "God," but in a sense merely titular, so as to leave an
impassable gulf between him and the uncreated Godhead (see Eunomius's
Exposition in Valesius's note on See., H. E., v., 10). Compare Basil
(Epist., 233, and his work against Eunomius), and Epiphanius (Hoer., 76).

THE ARIANS OR EUDOXIANS.

(Bright. Ut supra.)

"The Arians or Eudoxians." By these are meant the ordinary Arians of the
period, or, as they may be called, the Acacian party, directed for several
years by the essentially worldly and unconscientious Eudoxius. His real
sympathies were with the Anomoeans (see Tillemont, Memoires, vi., 423,
and compare his profane speech recorded by Socrates, H. E., ii., 43): but,
as a bishop of Constantinople, he felt it necessary to discourage them, and
to abide by the vague formula invented by Acacius of Caesarea, which
described the Son as "like to the Father," without saying whether this
likeness was supposed to be more than moral (cf. Newman, Arians, p.
317), so that the practical effect of this "homoion" was to prepare the
way for that very Anomoeanism which its maintainers were ready for
political purposes to disown.

464
THE SABELLIANS.

(Bright. Ut supra.)

"The Sabellians," whose theory is traceable to Noetus and Praxeas in the
latter part of the second century: they regarded the Son and the Holy
Spirit as aspects and modes of, or as emanations from, the One Person of
the Father (see Newman's Arians, pp. 120 et seqq.). Such a view tended
directly to dissolve Christian belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation
(Vide Wilberforce, Incarnation, pp, 112, 197). Hence the gentle Dionysius
of Alexandria characterized it in severe terms as involving "blasphemy,
unbelief, and irreverence, towards the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"
(Euseb., H. E., vii.. 6). Hence the deep repugnance which it excited, and
the facility with which the imputation of "Sabellianizing" could be utilized
by the Arians against maintainers of the Consubstantiality (Hilary, De
Trinit, iv., 4; De Synod., 68; Fragm., 11; Basil, Epist, 189, 2). No
organized Sabellian sect was in existence at the date of this anathema: but
Sabellian ideas were "in the air," and St. Basil could speak of a revival of
this old misbelief (Epist., 126). We find it again asserted by Chilperic I.,
King of Neustria, in the latter part of the sixth century (Greg. Turon.,
Hist. Fr., v., 45).

THE MARCELLIANS.

(Bright. Ut supra.)

"The Marcellians," called after Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, who was
persistently denounced not only by the Arianizers, but by St. Basil, and
for a time, at least, suspected by St. Athanasius (Vide Epiphan., Hoer., 72,
4) as one who held notions akin to Sabellianism, and fatal to a true belief in
the Divine Sonship and the Incarnation. The theory ascribed to him was
that the Logos was an impersonal Divine power, immanent from eternity
in God, but issuing from him in the act of creation, and entering at last into
relations with the human person of Jesus, who thus became God's Son.
But this expansion of the original divine unity would be followed by a
"contraction," when the Logos would retire from Jesus, and God would
again be all in all. Some nine years before the council, Marcellus, then in

465

extreme old age, had sent his deacon Eugenius to St. Athanasius, with a
written confession of faith, quite orthodox as to the eternity of the
Trinity, and the identity of the Logos with a pre-existing and personal
Son, although not verbally explicit as to the permanence of Christ' s
"kingdom," — the point insisted on in one of the
Epiphanian-Constantinopolitan additions to the Creed (Montfaucon,
Collect. Nov., ii., 1). The question whether Marcellus was personally
heterodox — i.e. whether the extracts from his treatise, made by his
adversary Eusebius of Caesarea, give a fair account of his real views — has
been answered unfavorably by some writers, as Newman (Athanasian
Treatises, ii., 200, ed. 2), and Dollinger (Hippolytus and Callistus, p. 217,
E. T. p. 201), while others, like Neale, think that "charity and truth"
suggest his "acquittal" (Hist. Patr. Antioch., p. 106). Montfaucon thinks
that his written statements might be favorably interpreted, but that his
oral statements must have given ground for suspicion.

THE PHOTINIANS.

(Bright. Ut supra.)

"The Photinians," or followers of Marcellus' s disciple Photinus, bishop of
Sirmium, the ready-witted and pertinacious disputant whom four
successive synods condemned before he could be got rid of, by State
power, in A.D. 351. (See St. Athanasius's Historical Writings, Introd. p.
lxxxix.) In his representation of the "Marcellian" theology, he laid special
stress on its Christological position — that Jesus, on whom the Logos
rested with exceptional fullness, was a mere man. See Athanasius, De
Synodis, 26, 27, for two creeds in which Photinianism is censured; also
Soc. H. E. ii., 18, 29, 30; vii., 39. There is an obvious affinity between it
and the "Samosatene" or Paulionist theory.

466

CANON II

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside
of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of
Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt;
and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the
Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being
preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian
affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian
bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their
dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless
they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being
observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the
affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the
Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the
custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

No traveler shall introduce confusion into the Churches either by ordaining
or by enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among the heathen
the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved.

In the above Ancient Epitome it will be noticed that not only is ordination
mentioned but also the "inthronization" of bishops. Few ceremonies are of
greater antiquity in the Christian Church than the solemn placing of the
newly chosen bishop in the episcopal chair of his diocese. It is mentioned
in the Apostolical Constitutions, and in the Greek Pontificals. Also in the
Arabic version of the Nicene Canons. (No. lxxi.). A sermon was usually
delivered by the newly consecrated bishop, called the "sermo

467

enthronisticus." He also sent to neighboring bishops at)X^a(3ai
evGpoviGTiKoci and the fees the new bishops paid were called toc

evGpOVlGTlKOC

VALESIUS.

(Note on Socrates, H.E.v., 8).

This rule seems to have been made chiefly on account of Meletius. Bishop
of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, and Peter of Alexandria. For Meletius
leaving the Eastern diocese had come to Constantinople to ordain Gregory
bishop there. And Gregory having abandoned the bishoprick of Sasima,
which was in the Pontic diocese, had removed to Constantinople. While
Peter of Alexandria had sent to Constantinople seven Egyptian bishops to
ordain Maximus the Cynic. For the purpose therefore of repressing these
[disorders], the fathers of the Synod of Constantinople made this canon.

BALSAMON

Take notice from the present canon that formerly all the Metropolitans of
provinces were themselves the heads of their own provinces, and were
ordained by their own synods. But all this was changed by Canon xxviij of
the Synod of Chalcedon, which directs that the Metropolitans of the
dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain others which are
mentioned in this Canon should be ordained by the Patriarch of
Constantinople and should be subject to him. But if you find other
churches which are autocephalous as the Church of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of
Iberia, you need not be astonished. For the Emperor Justinian gave this
honor to the Archbishop of Bulgaria.... The third Synod gave this honor to
the Archbishop of Cyprus, and by the law of the same synod (Canon
viii.), and by the Sixth Synod in its xxxixth Canon, the judgment of the
Synod of Antioch is annulled and this honor granted to the bishop of
Iberia.

468
TILLEMONT.

(Mem. ix., 489).

The Council seems likewise to reject, whether designedly or inadvertently,
what had been ordained by the Council of Sardica in favor of Rome. But as
assuredly it did not affect to prevent either Ecumenical Councils, or even
general Councils of the East, from judging of matters brought before them,
so I do not know if one may conclude absolutely that they intended to
forbid appeals to Rome. It regulates proceedings between Dioceses, but
not what might concern superior tribunals.

FLEURY.

(Hist. Eccl. in loc).

This Canon, which gives to the councils of particular places full authority
in Ecclesiastical matters, seems to take away the power of appealing to the
Pope granted by the Council of Sardica, and to restore the ancient right.

HEFELE

An exception to the rule against interference in other patriarchates was
made with regard to those Churches newly rounded amongst barbarous
nations (not belonging to the Roman Empire), as these were of course
obliged to receive their first bishops from strange patriarchates, and
remained after wards too few in number to form patriarchates of their own
and were therefore governed as belonging to other patriarchates, as, for
instance, Abyssinia by the patriarchate of Alexandria.

469

CANON III.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of
honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

The bishop of Constantinople is to be honored next after the bishop of
Rome.

It should be remembered that the change effected by this canon did not
affect Rome directly in any way, but did seriously affect Alexandria and
Antioch, which till then had ranked next after the see of Rome. When the
pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in reality
defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in such
matters the ancient customs should continue. Even the last clause, it would
seem, could give no offense to the most sensitive on the papal claims, for
it implies a wonderful power in the rank of Old Rome, if a see is to rank
next to it because it happens to be "New Rome." Of course these remarks
only refer to the wording of the canon which is carefully guarded; the
intention doubtless was to exalt the see of Constantinople, the chief see of
the East, to a position of as near equality as possible with the chief see of
the West.

ZONARAS

In this place the Council takes action concerning Constantinople, to which
it decrees the prerogative of honor, the priority, and the glory after the

470

Bishop of Rome as being New Rome and the Queen of cities. Some indeed
wish to understand the preposition \xexa here of time and not of
inferiority of grade. And they strive to confirm this interpretation by a
consideration of the XXVIII canon of Chalcedon, urging that if
Constantinople is to enjoy equal honors, the preposition "after" cannot
signify subjection. But on the other hand the hundred and thirtieth novel
of Justinian, Book V of the Imperial Constitutions, title three, understands
the canon otherwise. For, it says, "we decree that the most holy Pope of
Old Rome, according to the decrees of the holy synods is the first of all
priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople and of New
Rome, should have the second place after the Apostolic Throne of the
Elder Rome, and should be superior in honor to all others." From this
therefore it is abundantly evident that "after" denotes subjection
(/U7topi|3oca|j,bv) and diminution. And otherwise it would be impossible to
guard this equality of honor in each see. For in reciting their names, or
assigning them seats when they are to sit together, or arranging the order of
their signatures to documents, one must come before the other. Whoever
therefore shall explain this particle \iexa as only referring to time, and does
not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of dignity, does violence to the
passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor good. Moreover in
Canon xxxvj of the Council in Trullo, \ieia manifestly denotes subjection,
assigning to Constantinople the second place after the throne of Old
Rome; and then adds, after this Alexandria, then Antioch, and last of all
shall be placed Jerusalem.

HEFELE

If we enquire the reason why this Council tried to change the order of rank
of the great Sees, which had been established in the sixth Nicene canon, we
must first take into consideration that, since the elevation of
Constantinople to the Imperial residence, as New Rome, the bishops as
well as the Emperors naturally wished to see the new imperial residence,
New Rome, placed immediately after Old Rome in ecclesiastical rank also;
the rather, as with the Greeks it was the rule for the ecclesiastical rank of a
See to follow the civil rank of the city. The Synod of Antioch in 341, in its

471

ninth canon, had plainly declared this, and subsequently the fourth
General Council, in its seventeenth canon, spoke in the same sense. But
how these principles were protested against on the side of Rome, we shall
see further on in the history of the fourth General Council. For the
present, it may suffice to add that the aversion to Alexandria which, by
favoring Maximus, had exercised such a disturbing influence on Church
affairs in Constantinople, may well have helped to effect the elevation of
the See of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Moreover, for many
centuries Rome did not recognize this change of the old ecclesiastical order.
In the sixteenth session of the fourth General Council, the Papal Legate,
Lucentius, expressly declared this. In like manner the Popes Leo the Great
and Gregory the Great pronounced against it; and though even Gratian
adopted this canon in his collection the Roman critics added the following
note: Canon hie ex Us est, quos Apostolica Romana Sedes aprincipio et
longo post tempore non recepit. It was only when, after the conquest of
Constantinople by the Latins, a Latin patriarchate was founded there in
1204, that Pope Innocent III, and the twelfth General Council, in 1215,
allowed this patriarch the first rank after the Roman; and the same
recognition was expressly awarded to the Greek Patriarch at the Florentine
Union in 1439.

T.W.ALLIES.

Remarkable enough it is that when, in the Council of Chalcedon, appeal
was made to this third Canon, the Pope St. Leo declared that it had never
been notified to Rome. As in the mean time it had taken effect throughout
the whole East, as in this very council Nectarius, as soon as he is elected,
presides instead of Timothy of Alexandria, it puts in a strong point of
view the real self-government of the Eastern Church at this time; for the
giving the Bishop of Constantinople precedence over Alexandria and
Antioch was a proceeding which affected the whole Church, and so far
altered its original order — one in which certainly the West might claim to
have a voice. Tillemont goes on: "It would be very difficult to justify St.
Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had never known that the Bishop
of Constantinople took the second place in the Church, and the first in the
East, since his legates, whose conduct he entirely approves, had just

472

themselves authorized it as a thing beyond dispute, and Eusebius of
Dorylaeum maintained that St. Leo himself had proved it." The simple fact
is, that, exceedingly unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it,
from this time, 381, to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople
appears uniformly as first bishop of the East.

Cardinal Baronius in his Annals (A.D. 381, n. 35, 36) has disputed the
genuineness of this Canon! As already mentioned it is found in the Corpus
Juris Canonici, Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII, c. iij. The note added to this
in Gratian reads as follows:

NOTE IN GRATIAN'S "DECRETUM."

This canon is of the number of those which the Apostolic See of Rome did
not at first nor for long years afterwards receive. This is evident from
Epistle LI. (or LIII.) of Pope Leo I. to Anatolius of Constantinople and
from several other of his letters. The same thing also is shewn by two
letters of Leo IX. 's, the one against the presumptuous acts of Michael and
Leo (cap. 28) and the other addressed to the same Michael. But still more
clearly is this seen from the letter of Blessed Gregory (xxxj., lib. VI.) to
Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and from the letter of
Nicholas I. to the Emperor Michel which begins "Proposueramus."
However, the bishops of Constantinople, sustained by the authority of
the Emperors, usurped to themselves the second place among the
patriarchs, and this at length was granted to them for the sake of peace and
tranquillity, as Pope Innocent III. declares (in cap. antiqua de privileg.).

This canon Dionysius Exiguus appends to Canon 2, and dropping 5, 6,
and 7 he has but three canons of this Synod.

473

CANON IV

Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in
Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and
is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no
order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him
or by him, is declared to be invalid.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from among the bishops, and anyone
who was inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as profane.

EDMUND VENABLES.

(Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog.)

Maximus the Cynic; the intrusive bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 380.
Ecclesiastical history hardly presents a more extraordinary career than that
of this man, who, after a most disreputable youth, more than once brought
to justice for his misdeeds, and bearing the scars of his punishments, by
sheer impudence, clever flattery, and adroit manage-merit of opportunities,
contrived to gain the confidence successively of no less men than Peter of
Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, and Ambrose, and to install himself in one
of the first sees of the church, from which he was with difficulty dislodged
by a decree of an ecumenical council. His history also illustrates the
jealousy felt by the churches of Alexandria and Rome towards their young
and vigorous rival for patriarchal honors, the church of Constantinople; as
well as their claim to interfere with her government, and to impose prelates

474

upon her according to their pleasure. Alexandria, as the chief see of the
Eastern world, from the first asserted a jurisdiction which she has never
formally relinquished over the see of Constantinople, more particularly in
a vacancy in the episcopate (Neale, Pair, of Alexandria, i, 206). The
conduct of Peter, the successor of Athanasius, first in instituting Gregory
Nazianzen bishop of Constantinople by his letters and sending a formal
recognition of his appointment and then in substituting Maximus, as has
been remarked by Milman {History of Christianity, iii., 115, note) and
Ullman (Greg. Naz., p. 203 [Cox's translation]), furnish unmistakable
indications of the desire to erect an Oriental papacy, by establishing the
primacy of Alexandria over Constantinople and so over the East, which
was still further illustrated a few years later by the high-handed behavior
of Theophilus towards Chrysostom.

Maximus was a native of Alexandria of low parentage. He boasted that his
family had produced martyrs. He got instructed in the rudiments of the
Christian faith and received baptism, but strangely enough sought to
combine the Christian profession with Cynic philosophy.

When he presented himself at the Eastern capital he wore the white robe
of a Cynic, and carried a philosopher's staff, his head being laden with a
huge crop of crisp curling hair, dyed a golden yellow, and swinging over
his shoulders in long ringlets. He represented himself as a confessor for the
Nicene faith, and his banishment to the Oasis as a suffering for the truth
(Orat. xxiii., p. 419). Before long he completely gained the ear and heart of
Gregory, who admitted him to the closest companionship. Maximus
proclaimed the most unbounded admiration for Gregory's discourses,
which he praised in private, and, according to the custom of the age,
applauded in public. His zeal against heretics was most fierce, and his
denunciation of them uncompromising. The simple-hearted Gregory
became the complete dupe of Maximus.

All this time Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for ousting his
unsuspicious patron from his throne. He gained the ear and the confidence
of Peter of Alexandria, and induced him to favor his ambitious views.
Gregory, he asserted, had never been formally enthroned bishop of
Constantinople; his translation thither was a violation of the canons of the
church; rustic in manners, he had proved himself quite unfitted for the

475

place. Constantinople was getting weary of him. It was time the patriarch
of the Eastern world should exercise his prerogative and give New Rome a
more suitable bishop. The old man was imposed on as Gregory had been,
and lent himself to Maximus's projects. Maximus found a ready tool in a
presbyter of Constantinople, envious of Gregory's talents and popularity
(de Vit., p. 13). Others were gained by bribes. Seven unscrupulous sailor
fellows were despatched from Alexandria to mix with the people, and
watch for a favorable opportunity for carrying out the plot. When all was
ripe they were followed by a bevy of bishops, with secret instructions
from the patriarch to consecrate Maximus.

The conspirators chose the night for the accomplishment of their
enterprise. Gregory they knew was confined by illness. They forced their
way into the cathedral, and commenced the rite of ordination. By the time
they had set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne, and had just begun
shearing away his long curls, they were surprised by the dawn. The news
quickly spread, and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates
appeared on the scene with their officers; Maximus and his consecrators
were driven from the sacred precincts, and in the house or shop of a
flute-player the tonsure was completed. Maximums repaired to
Thessalonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He met with a cold
reception from the emperor, who committed the matter to Ascholius, the
much respected bishop of that city, charging him to refer it to pope
Damasus. We have two letters of Damasus's on this subject. In the first,
addressed to Ascholius and the Macedonian bishops, he vehemently
condemns the "ardor animi et feeds presumptio" which had led certain
persons coming from Egypt, in violation of the rule of ecclesiastical
discipline, to have proposed to consecrate a restless man, an alien from the
Christian profession, not worthy to be called a Christian, who wore an
idolatrous garb ("habitus idoli") and the long hair which St. Paul said was a
shame to a man, and remarks on the fact that being expelled from the
church they were compelled to complete the ordination "intra parities
alienos." In the second letter addressed to Ascholius individually (Ep. vi.)
he repeats his condemnation of the ordination of the long-haired Maximus
("comatum") and asks him to take special care that a Catholic bishop may
be ordained (Migne, Patrolog., xiii., pp. 366-369; Ep. 5; 5, 6).

476

Maximus returned to Alexandria, and demanded that Peter should assist
him in re-establishing himself at Constantinople. But Peter had discovered
the man's true character, and received him as coldly as Theodosius had
done. Determined to carry his point he presented himself to the patriarch
at the head of a disorderly mob, with the threat that if he did not help him
to gain the throne of Constantinople he would have that of Alexandria.
Peter appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus was driven out of
Egypt. The death of Peter and the accession of Timotheus are placed Feb.
14, 380. The events described must therefore have occurred in 379. When
the second ecumenical council met at Constantinople in 381, the question
of Maximus' s claim to the see of Constantinople came up for
consideration. His pretensions were unanimously rejected.

BRIGHT

(Notes on the Canons, in loc.)

Maximus, however, having been expelled from Egypt, made his way into
Northern Italy, presented to Gratian at Milan a large work which he had
written against the Arians (as to which Gregory sarcastically remarks —
"Saul a prophet, Maximus an author!" Carm. adv. Mar., 21), and deceived
St. Ambrose and his suffragans by showing the record of his consecration,
with letters which Peter had once written in his behalf. To these prelates
of the "Italic diocese" the appeal of Maximus seemed like the appeal of
Athanasius, and more recently of Peter himself, to the sympathy of the
church of Rome; and they re quested Theodosius to let the case be heard
before a really General Council (Mansi, 3:631). Nothing further came of it;
perhaps, says Tillemont, those who thus wrote in favor of Maximus
"reconnurent bientot quel il etait" (ix., 502): so that when a Council did
meet at Rome towards the end of 382, no steps were taken in his behalf.

477

CANON V

(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382.
Vide. Introduction on the number of the Canons.)

In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in
Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

The Tome of the Westerns which recognizes the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit as consubstantial is highly acceptable.

Beveridge and Van Espen translate this canon differently, thus, "With
regard to the tome of the Westerns, we agree with those in Antioch [i.e.
the Synod of 378] who (accepted it and) acknowledged the unity of the
Godhead of the Father etc," In opposition to this translation Hefele urges
that 6c7toSe%£G9oci in ecclesiastical language usually refers to receiving
persons and recognizing them, not opinions or doctrines.

HEFELE

This canon probably does not belong to the second General Council, but
to the Synod held in the following year at Constantinople consisting of
nearly the same bishops.

It is certain that by the "Tome of the Westerns" a dogmatic work of the
Western bishops is to be understood, and the only question is which
Tome of the Westerns is here meant. Several — for instance, the Greek
commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, and the spokesman of the Latins at

478

the Synod of Florence in 1439 (Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes) —
understood by it the decrees of the Synod of Sardica; but it seems to me
that this canon undoubtedly indicates that the Tome of the Westerns also
mentioned the condition of the Antiochian Church, and the division into
two parties of the orthodox of that place — the Meletian schism. Now, as
this was not mentioned, nay, could not have been, at the Synod of Sardica
— for this schism at Antioch only broke out seventeen years later —
some other document of the Latins must certainly be meant. But we know
that Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed a
Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and that
nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred and
forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and signed
this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the Meletian
schism. Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth Roman
Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still possess a
portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to Bishop Paul
of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city. Under these
circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression "the tome of the
Westerns" either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of 380, and I am
disposed to give the preference to the former, for the following reasons: —

(1.) As has been already observed, this canon belongs to the Synod held at
Constantinople in 382.

(2.) We still possess in Theodoret a Synodal Letter to the Latins from this
later Synod.

(3.) The canon in question, as proceeding from the same source, is, of
course to a certain extent, connected with this letter.

(4.) In this Synodal Letter, the Eastern bishops, in order to convince the
Latins of their orthodoxy, appeal to two documents, the one a "tome" of
an Antiochian Synod, and the other a "tome" of the Ecumenical Council
held at Constantinople in 381.

(5.) By the Antiochian Synod here mentioned, I understand the great
synod of 378, and, as a necessary consequence, believe the "tome" there
produced to be none other than the Roman Tome of 369, which was then
accepted at Antioch.

479

(6.) It is quite certain that the Synod of Antioch sent a copy of this Tome,
with the declaration of its acceptance and the signatures of the members,
back to Rome, as a supplement to its Synodal Letter; and hence Lucas
Holstenius was still able to find fragments of it in Rome.

(7.) The Synod of Constantinople of 382 might well call this Tome, sent
back to Rome with the acceptance and signatures of the Easterns, a "Tome
established at Antioch," although it was really drawn up at Rome.

(8.) If, however, the Synod of Constantinople in its Synodal Letter speaks
of this Tome, we are justified in supposing that the one mentioned in its
canon is the same.

(9.) That which still remains of the Roman Tome of 369, treats expressly
of the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
and such were the contents of the Tome according to this canon.

(1.0.) It is true that the fragments still preserved of this Tome contain no
passage directly referring to the Antiochian schism; but, in the first place,
very little remains of it, and there is the more reason to suppose that the
Meletian schism was spoken of in the portion which has been lost, as it
was the same Antiochian Synod that accepted the Tome which urged the
putting an end to that schism. It is still more to the purpose that the
Italian bishops, in their letter to the Easterns in 381, expressly say that
they had already long before (dudum) written to the Orientals in order to
put an end to the division between the orthodox at Antioch. By this
"dudum" I conclude that they refer to the Roman Tome of 369; and if the
Westerns in their letter to the Easterns in 381 pointed to this Tome, it was
natural that the Synod of Constantinople of 382 should also have referred
to it, for it was that very letter of the Latins which occasioned and called
the synod into being.

Lastly, for the full understanding of this canon, it is necessary to observe
that the Latins, in their letter just mentioned of 381, say that "they had
already in their earlier missive (i.e. as we suppose, in the Tome of 369)
spoken to the effect that both parties at Antioch, one as much as the
other, were orthodox." Agreeing with this remark of the Westerns,
repeated in their letter of 381, the Easterns in this canon say, "We also

480

recognize all Antiochians as orthodox who acknowledge the oneness of the
Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

481

CANON VI.

(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382.
Vide Introduction on the number of Canons.)

Forasmuch as many wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order,
do contentiously and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox
bishops who have the administration of the Churches, intending nothing
else than to stain the reputation of the priests and raise up disturbances
amongst the peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to the Holy Synod of
Bishops assembled together in Constantinople, not to admit accusers
without examination; and neither to allow all persons whatsoever to bring
accusations against the rulers of the Church, nor, on the other hand, to
exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a private complaint against the
Bishop, that is, one relating to his own affairs, as, for example, that he has
been defrauded, or otherwise unjustly treated by him, in such accusations
no examination shall be made, either of the person or of the religion of the
accuser; for it is by all means necessary that the conscience of the Bishop
should be free, and that he who says he has been wronged should meet
with righteous judgment, of whatever religion he may be. But if the charge
alleged against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offense, then it is
necessary to examine carefully the persons of the accusers, so that, in the
first place, heretics may not be suffered to bring accusations touching
ecclesiastical matters against orthodox bishops. And by heretics we mean
both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom we ourselves
have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith
who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in
opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who have been
condemned for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated,
whether of the clergy or the laity, neither shall it be lawful for these to
bring an accusation against the bishop, until they have cleared away the
charge against themselves. In like manner, persons who are under previous
accusations are not to be permitted to bring charges against a bishop or
any other clergyman, until they shall have proved their own innocence of
the accusation brought against them. But if any, being neither heretics, nor

482

excommunicate, nor condemned, nor under previous accusation for alleged
faults, should declare that they have any ecclesiastical charge against the
bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first lay their charges before all the
Bishops of the Province, and before them prove the accusations,
whatsoever they may be, which they have brought against the bishop.
And if the comprovincials should be unable rightly to settle the charges
brought against the bishop, then the parties must betake themselves to a
greater synod of the bishops of that diocese called together for this
purpose; and they shall not produce their allegations before they have
promised in writing to undergo an equal penalty to be exacted from
themselves, if, in the course of the examination, they shall be proved to
have slandered the accused bishop. And if anyone, despising what has
been decreed concerning these things, shall presume to annoy the ears of
the Emperor, or the courts of temporal judges, or, to the dishonor of all the
Bishops of his Province, shall trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an one
shall by no means be admitted as an accuser; forasmuch as he has east
contempt upon the Canons, and brought reproach upon the order of the
Church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

Even one that is of ill repute, if he have suffered any injury, let him bring a
charge against the bishop. If however it be a crime of ecclesiastical matters
let him not speak. Nor shall another condemned before, speak. Let not one
excommunicated, or cast forth, or charged with any crimes speak, until he
is cleared of them. But those who should bring the charge are the orthodox,
who are communicants, uncondemned, unaccused. Let the case be heard
by the provincials. If however they are not able to decide the case, let them
have recourse to a greater synod and let them not be heard, without a
written declaration of liability to the same sufferings [i.e. of their readiness

483

to be tried by the lextalionis.] But should anyone contrary to the provisions
appeal to the Emperor and trouble him, let such be cast forth.

The phrase "who have the administration of the Churches," Hatch in his
Bampton Lectures (Lect. I., p. 41) erroneously supposes to refer only to
the administration of the Church's alms. But this, as Dr. Bright well
points out (" Notes on the Canons," in loc.) cannot be the meaning of
o'ikovoc|X£iv when used absolutely as in this canon. He says, "When a
merely 'economic' function is intended, the context shows it, as in
Chalcedon, Canon xxvj." He also points out that in Canon ij., and in
Eusebius (H. E. iv., 4), and when St. Basil wishes his brother to
oiKovou-Eiv a church suited to his temperament (Epist. xcviij., 2) the
meaning of the word is evidently spiritual stewardship.

ZONARAS

By "those who were cast out of the Church" are to be understood those
who were altogether cut off from the Church; but by those who were
"excommunicated" the holy fathers intend all those, whether clerics or
laymen, who are deprived of communion for a set time.

VAN ESPEN

It is evident from the context of this canon that "Diocese" here does not
signify the district or territory assigned to any one bishop, as we today
use the word; but for a district, which not only contained many episcopal
districts, as today do ecclesiastical provinces, but which contained also
many provinces, and this was the meaning of the word at the time of this
Council's session.

484

ZONARAS

We call Adrianople, for example, or Philopopolis with the bishops of each
a "Province," but the whole of Thrace or Macedonia we call a "Diocese."
When these crimes were brought forward to be corrected, for the judging of
which the provincial bishops were by no means sufficient, then the Canon
orders the bishops of the diocese to assemble, and determine the charges
preferred against the bishop.

VAN ESPEN

Both the Canon and the Civil Law require the accusers to submit
themselves to the law of retaliation (lex talionis). Vide Gratian, Pt. II.,
Causa II., Quaest. III., 2 and 3, where we read from the decree of Pope
Hadrian; "Whoever shall not prove what he advances, shall himself suffer
the penalty due the crime he charged." And under the name of Damasus,
"The calumniator, if he fail in proving his accusation, shall receive his
tale." The Civil Law is in L. x., God. de Calumniatoribus, and reads,
"Whoso charges a crime, shall not have license to lie with impunity, since
justice requires that calumniators shall endure the punishment due the
crime which they failed to prove."

The Council wishes that all accusations of bishops for ecclesiastical
offenses shall be kept out of the secular courts, and shall be heard by
synods of bishops, in the manner and form here prescribed, which is in
accordance with the Constitution which under the names of Valens,
Gratian, and Valentinian, the Emperors, is referred to in law xxiij. of the
Code of Theodosius, De Episcopis et Clericis.

Whatever may be said of the meeting of bishops at which this canon was
enacted, this is clear, no mention was made of the Roman Pontiff, nor of
the Council of Sardica, as Fleury notes in his Histoire Ecclesiastique, Lib.
xviij., n. 8. From this it is evident either that at that time the Orientals did
not admit, especially for bishops, appeals to the Roman Pontiff; nor did
they accept the authority of the Synod of Sardica, in so far as it permitted

485

that the sentence given in a provincial synod, should be reopened by the
neighboring bishops together with the bishops of the province, and if it
seemed good, that the cause might be referred to Rome.

WARNING TO THE READER TOUCHING CANON VII.

(Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. II., in loc.)

This canon, I confess, is contained in all the editions of the Commentaries
of Balsamon and Zonaras. It is cited also by Photius in Nomocanon, Titus
12:ch. xiv., besides it is extant in a contracted form in the Epitome of
Alexius Aristenus. But it is wanting in all the Latin versions of the
Canons, in the ancient translations of Dionys. Exig., Isidore Mercator, etc.;
also in the Epitome of Sym. Logothet., and the Arabic paraphrase of
Josephus Aegyp., and what is particularly to be observed, in the collection
and nomocanon of John of Antioch; and this not through want of attention
on his part, as is clear from this namely, that in the order of the Canons as
given by him he attributes six Canons only to this second General Council,
saying "... of the Fathers who assembled at Constantinople, by whom six
Canons were set forth," so that it is clear the present was not reckoned
among the canons of this council in those days. Nay, the whole
composition of this canon clearly indicates that it is to be ascribed, neither
to this present council, nor to any other (unless perhaps to that of Trullo,
of which we shall speak afterwards). For nothing is appointed in it,
nothing confirmed, but a certain ancient custom of receiving converted
heretics, is here merely recited.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 368.)

As we possess a letter from the Church at Constantinople in the middle of
the fifth century to Bishop Martyrius of Antioch, in which the same
subject is referred to in a precisely similar way, Beveridge is probably
right in conjecturing that the canon was only an extract from this letter to
Martyrius; therefore in no way a decree of the second General Council,
nor even of the Synod of 382, but at least eighty years later than the latter.
This canon, with an addition, was afterwards adopted by the Quinisext
Synod as its ninety-fifth, without, however, giving its origin.

486

CANON VII

Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those
who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and
custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who
call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites,
and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of
their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance
with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they
are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes,
nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of the
gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one
immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians,
who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other
mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies — for there are
many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of
the Galatians: — all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we
receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the
second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in
their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend
some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize
them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EITOME OF CANON VII.

Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, and
Apollinarians ought to be received with their books and anointed in all
their organs of sense.

487

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Eunomians baptized with one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians are to
be received as heathen.

ARISTEMUS (in Can. vij.).

Those giving up their books and execrating every heresy are received with
only anointing with chrism of the eyes, the nostrils, the ears, the mouth,
and the brow; and signing them with the words, "The Seal of the gift of the
Holy Ghost."

For the "Cathari," see Notes on Canon 8:of I. Nice.

HAMMOND.

Sabbatians. Sabbatius was a presbyter who adopted the sentiments of
Novatius, but as it is clear from the histories of Socrates and Sozomen,
that he did not do so till at least eight years after the celebration of this
council, it is of course equally clear that this canon could not have been
framed by this council. Aristeri. This is probably a false reading for Aristi,
i.e. the best. In the letter above mentioned the expression is Cathari and
Catheroteri, i.e. the pure, and the more pure.

The Quarto-decimans, or Tetradites, were those persons who persisted in
observing the Easter festival with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the
first month, whatever day of the week it happened to be.

Montanists. One of the older sects, so called from Montanus, who
embraced Christianity in the second century. He professed to be inspired
in a peculiar way by the Holy Ghost, and to prophesy. He was supported
in his errors by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also pretended
to prophesy. His heresy infected many persons, amongst others
Tertullian, but being condemned by the Church, his followers formed a
sect remarkable for extreme austerity. But although they asserted that the

488

Holy Ghost had inspired Montanus to introduce a system of greater
perfection than the Church had before known, and condemned those who
would not join them as carnal, they did not at first innovate in any of the
articles of the Creed. This sect lasted a long time, and spread much in
Phrygia and the neighboring districts, whence they were called Phryges
and Cataphryges, and latterly adopted the errors of Sabellius respecting
the Trinity.

The other heresies mentioned in this canon have been treated of in the
excursus to Canon j .

489

EXCURSUS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECOND
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., pp. 370, et seqq.)

Lastly, to turn to the question of the authority of this Council, it appears,
first of all, that immediately after its close, in the same year, 381, several
of its acts were censured by a Council of Latins, namely, the prolongation
of the Meletian schism (by the elevation of Flavian), and the choice of
Nectarius as Bishop of Constantinople, while, as is known, the Westerns
held (the Cynic) Maximus to be the rightful bishop of that city.

In consequence of this, the new Synod assembled in the following year,
382, at Constantinople, sent the Latins a copy of the decrees of faith
composed the year before, expressly calling this Synod oiKcupeviKri and
at the same time seeking to justify it in those points which had been
censured. Photius maintains that soon afterwards Pope Damasus
confirmed this synod; but, as the following will show, this confirmation
could only have referred to the creed and not to the canons. As late as
about the middle of the fifth century, Pope Leo I. spoke in a very
deprecatory manner of these canons, especially of the third, which
concerned the ecclesiastical rank of Constantinople, remarking that it was
never sent to the See of Rome. Still later, Gregory the Great wrote in the
same sense: Romana autem Ecclesia eosdam canones vel gesta Synodi
illius hactenus non habet, nee accepit; in hoc autem earn accepit, quod est
per earn contra Macedonium definitum.

Thus, as late as the year 600, only the creed, but not the canons of the
Synod of Constantinople were accepted at Rome; but on account of its
creed, Gregory the Great reckons it as one of the four Ecumenical
Councils, which he compares to the four Gospels. So also before him the
popes Vigilius and Pelagius II, reckoned this Synod among the Ecumenical
Councils.

The question is, from what date the Council of Constantinople was
considered ecumenical by the Latins as well as by the Greeks. We will
begin with the latter. Although as we have seen, the Synod of 382 had
already designated this council as ecumenical, yet it could not for a long

490

time obtain an equal rank with the Council of Nicaea, for which reason the
General Council of Ephesus mentions that of Nicaea and its creed with the
greatest respect, but is totally silent as to this Synod. Soon afterwards, the
so-called Robber-Synod in 449, spoke of two (General) Councils, at
Nicaea and Ephesus, and designated the latter as f| Seine poc avvodoq, as
a plain token that it did not ascribe such a high rank to the assembly at
Constantinople. It might perhaps be objected that only the
Monophysites, who notoriously ruled the Robber-Synod, used this
language; bill the most determined opponent of the Monophysites, their
accuser, Bishop Eusebius of Doylaeum, in like manner also brought
forward only the two Synods of Nicaea and Ephesus, and declared that
"he held to the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled
at Nicaea, and to all that was done at the great and Holy Synod at
Ephesus."

The Creed of Constantinople appears for the first time to have been highly
honored at the fourth General Council, which had it recited after that of
Nicaea, and thus solemnly approved it. Since then this Synod has been
universally honored as ecumenical by the Greeks, and was mentioned by
the Emperor Justinian with the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon, as of equal rank.

But in the West, and especially in Rome, however satisfied people were
with the decree of faith enacted by this Synod, and its completion of the
creed, yet its third canon, respecting the rank of Constantinople, for a long
time proved a hindrance to its acknowledgment. This was especially
shown at the Council of Chalcedon, and during the time immediately
following. When at that Council the creed of Constantinople was praised,
repeated, and confirmed the Papal Legates fully concurred; but when the
Council also renewed and confirmed the third canon of Constantinople, the
Legates left the assembly, lodged a protest against it on the following day,
and declared that the rules of the hundred and fifty bishops at
Constantinople were never inserted among the Synodal canons (which
were recognized at Rome). The same was mentioned by Pope Leo himself,
who, immediately after the close of the Council of Chalcedon wrote to
Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople: "that document of certain bishops
(i.e. the third canon of Constantinople) was never brought by your
predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See." Leo also, in his

491

105th letter to the Empress Pulcheria, speaks just as depreciatingly of this
Council of Constantinople; and Quesnel is entirely wrong in maintaining
that the Papal Legates at the Synod of Chalcedon at first practically
acknowledged the validity of the third canon of Constantinople. Bishop
Eusebius of Doylaeum was equally mistaken in maintaining at Chalcedon
itself, that the third canon had been sanctioned by the Pope; and we shall
have occasion further on, in the history of the Council of Chalcedon, to
show the untenable character of both statements.

Pope Felix III. took the same view as Pope Leo, when, in his letter to the
monks at Constantinople and Bithynia in 485, he only spoke of three
General Councils at Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; neither did his
successor Gelasius (492-496) in his genuine decree, De libris recipiendis,
mention this Synod. It may certainly be said, on the other hand, that in the
sixth century its ecumenical character had come to be most distinctly
acknowledged in the Latin Church also, and, as we have seen above, had
been expressly affirmed by the Popes Vigilius, Pelagius II., and Gregory
the Great. But this acknowledgment, even when it is not expressly stated,
only referred to the decrees on faith of the Council of Constantinople, and
not to its canons, as we have already observed in reference to the third and
sixth of them.

492

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

A.D. 382.

THE SYNODICAL LETTER.

To the right honorable lords our right reverend brethren and colleagues,
Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius
and the rest of the holy bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the
holy synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great city of
Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord.

To recount all the sufferings inflicted on us by the power of the Arians,
and to attempt to give information to your reverences, as though you were
not already well acquainted with them, might seem superfluous. For we do
not suppose your piety to hold what is befalling us as of such secondary
importance as that you stand in any need of information on matters which
cannot but evoke your sympathy. Nor indeed were the storms which
beset us such as to escape notice from their insignificance. Our
persecutions are but of yesterday. The sound of them still rings in the ears
alike of those who suffered them and of those whose love made the
sufferers' pain their own. It was but a day or two ago, so to speak, that
some released from chains in foreign lands returned to their own churches
through manifold afflictions; of others who had died in exile the relics were
brought home; others again, even after their return from exile, found the
passion of the heretics still at the boiling heat, and, slain by them with
stones as was the blessed Stephen, met with a sadder fate in their own
than in a stranger's land. Others, worn away with various cruelties, still
bear in their bodies the scars of their wounds and the marks of Christ.
Who could tell the tale of fines, of disfranchisements, of individual
confiscations, of intrigues, of outrages, of prisons? In truth all kinds of
tribulation were wrought out beyond number in us, perhaps because we
were paying the penalty of sins, perhaps because the merciful God was

493

trying us by means of the multitude of our sufferings. For these all thanks
to God, who by means of Such afflictions trained his servants and,
according to the multitude of his mercies, brought us again to refreshment.
We indeed needed long leisure, time, and toil to restore the church once
more, that so, like physicians healing the body after long sickness and
expelling its disease by gradual treatment, we might bring her back to her
ancient health of true religion. It is true that on the whole we seem to have
been delivered from the violence of our persecutions and to be just now
recovering the churches which, have for a long time been the prey of the
heretics. But wolves are troublesome to us who, though they have been
driven from the fold, yet harry the flock up and down the glades, daring to
hold rival assemblies, stirring seditious among the people, and shrinking
from nothing which can do damage to the churches. So, as we have already
said, we needs must labor all the longer. Since, however, you showed your
brotherly love to us by inviting us (as though we were your own
members) by the letters of our most religious emperor to the synod which
you are gathering by divine permission at Rome, to the end that since we
alone were then condemned to suffer persecution, you should not now,
when our emperors are at one with us as to true religion, reign apart from
us, but that we, to use the Apostle's phrase, should reign with you, our
prayer was, if it were possible, all in company to leave our churches, and
rather gratify our longing to see you than consult their needs. For who will
give us wings as of a dove, and we will fly and be at rest? But this course
seemed likely to leave the churches who were just recovering quite
uncle-fended, and the undertaking was to most of us impossible, for, in
accordance witch the letters sent a year ago from your holiness after the
synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor Theodosius, we had
journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for traveling so far as
Constantinople, and bringing the consent of the bishops remaining in the
provinces of this synod alone. We had been in no expectation of any
longer journey nor had heard a word about it, before our arrival at
Constantinople. In addition to all this, and on account of the narrow limits
of the appointed time which allowed of no preparation for a longer
journey, nor of communicating with the bishops of our communion in the
provinces and of obtaining their consent, the journey to Rome was for the
majority impossible. We have therefore adopted the next best course open
to us under the circumstances, both for the better administration of the

494

church, and for manifesting our love towards you, by strongly urging our
most venerated, and honored colleagues and brother bishops Cyriacus,
Eusebius and Priscianus, to consent to travel to you.

Through them we wish to make it plain that our disposition is all for peace
with unity for its sole object, and that we are full of zeal for the right faith.
For we, whether we suffered persecutions, or afflictions, or the threats of
emperors, or the cruelties of prince, s, or any other trial at the hands of
heretics, have undergone all for the sake of the evangelic faith, ratified by
the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. This is the
faith which ought to be sufficient for you, for us, for all who wrest not the
word of the true faith; for it is the ancient faith; it is the faith of our
baptism; it is the faith that teaches us to believe in the name of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. According to this faith there is one
Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in three
perfect hypostases, i.e. three perfect persons. Thus there is no room for
the heresy of Sabellius by the confusion of the hypostases, i.e. the
destruction of the personalities; thus the blasphemy of the Eunomians, of
the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi is nullified, which divides the
substance, the nature, dud the godhead, and super-induces on the
uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity a nature posterior, created
and of a different substance. We moreover preserve unperverted the
doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that the
dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless nor mindless nor imperfect;
and knowing full well that God's Word was perfect before the ages, and
became perfect man in the last days for our salvation.

Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which is fearlessly and
frankly preached by us, and concerning which you will be able to be still
further satisfied if you will deign to read the tome of the synod of
Antioch, and also that tome issued last year by the Ecumenical Council
held at Constantinople, in which we have set forth our confession of the
faith at greater length, and have appended an anathema against the heresies
which innovators have recently inscribed.

Now as to the particular administration of individual churches, an ancient
custom, as you know, has obtained, confirmed by the enactment of the

495

holy fathers of Nicaea, that in every province, the bishops of the province,
and, with their consent, the neighboring bishops with them, should
perform ordinations as expediency may require. In conforming with these
customs note that other churches have been administered by us and the
priests of the most famous, churches publicly appointed. Accordingly
over the new made (if the expression be allowable) church at
Constantinople, which, as through from a lion's mouth, we have lately
snatched by God's mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, we have
ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius, in the
presence of the Ecumenical Council, with common consent, before the
most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the assent of all the clergy
and of the whole city. And over the most ancient and truly apostolic
church in Syria, where first the noble name of Christians was given them,
the bishops of the province and of the eastern diocese have met together
and canonically ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious
Flavianus, with the consent of all the church, who as though with one
voice joined in expressing their respect for him. This rightful ordination
also received the sanction of the General Council. Of the church at
Jerusalem, mother of all the churches, we make known that the right
reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, who was some time ago
canonically ordained by the bishops of the province, and has in several
places fought a good fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence
to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us, by
the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the
Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification of
churches of more importance than individual grace or favor. Thus since
among us there is agreement in the faith and Christian charity has been
established, we shall cease to use the phrase condemned by the apostles, I
am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas, and all appearing as Christ's,
who in us is not divided, by God's grace we will keep the body of the
church unrent, and will boldly stand at the judgment seat of the Lord.

496

THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

A.D. 431

Emperors. — THEODOSIUS II. AND VALENTINIAN III.
Pope. — CELESTINE I.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod.

Extracts from the Acts, Session I.

St. Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, Intelligo quos dam.

Continuation of Session I.

Historical Introduction to Cyril's Anathematisms.

The Canonical Epistle of St. Cyril, Gum Salvator noster.

The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril, and Nestorius' s

Counter-anathematisms, with Notes.

Excursus to Anath. I., On the word 6eoxoKo<;

Excursus to Anath. IX„ On how our Lord worked Miracles, with

Theodoret's Counter-statement.

Extracts from the Acts, Session I. continued.

Decree against Nestorius, with Notes.

Extracts from the Acts, Session II.

St. Celestine's Letter to the Synod.

Continuation of Session II.

Session III.

The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome, and Notes.

497

Excursus to Canon j., On the Conciliabulum of John of

Antioch.
Excursus to Canon iv., On Pelagianism.
Excursus to Canon vii., On the words tugtiv exepocv
A Letter from the Synod to the Synod in Pamphylia.
The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine.
The Definition against the Messalians, with Notes.
The Decree re Euprepius and Cyril.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

(Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall., Lib. vij., Cap. 9:et seqq. Abridged. Translation
by Allies.)

The innovation of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, is known; how he
divided into two the person of Christ. Pope St. Celestine, watchful,
according to his office, over the affairs of the Church, had charged the
blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, to send him a certain report of the
doctrine of Nestorius, already in bad repute. Cyril declares this in his letter
to Nestorius; and so he writes to Celestine a complete account, and sets
forth the doctrines of Nestorius and his own; he sends him two letters
from him self to Nestorius, who likewise, by his own letters and
explanations, endeavored to draw Celestine to his side. Thus the holy
Pontiff, having been most fully informed by letters from both sides, is
thus inquired of by Cyril. "We have not confidently abstained from
Communion with him (Nestorius) before informing you of this;
condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know
whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous
doctrine." And he adds, that his judgment should be written to the other
Bishops also, "that all with one mind may hold firm in one sentence."
Here is the Apostolic See manifestly consulted by so great a man,
presiding over the second, or at least the third, Patriarchal See, and its
judgment awaited; and nothing remained but that Celestine, being duly
consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. But how he did this, the

498

Acts have shewn. In those Acts he not only approves the letters and
doctrine of Cyril, but disapproves, too, the perverse dogma of Nestorius,
and that distinctly, because he was unwilling to call the blessed Virgin
Mother of God: and he decrees that he should be deprived of the
Episcopate and Communion unless, within ten days from the date of the
announcing of the sentence, he openly rejects this faithless innovation,
which endeavors to separate what Scripture joineth together — that is, the
Person of Christ. Here is the doctrine of Nestorius expressly disapproved,
and a sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a matter of Faith most clearly
pronounced under threat of deposition and excommunication: then, that
nothing be wanting, the holy Pope commits his authority to Cyril to carry
into execution that sentence "associating," he saith to Cyril, "the authority
of our See, and using our person, and place, with power." So to Cyril; so
to Nestorius himself; so to the clergy of Constantinople; so to John of
Antioch, then the Bishop of the third or fourth Patriarchal See; so to
Juvenal, Bishop of the Holy City, whom the Council of Nice had ordered
to be especially honored: so he writes to the other Bishops also, that the
sentence given may be duly and in order made known to all. Cyril
proceeds to execute his office, and performs all that he had been
commanded. He promulgates and executes the decrees of Celestine;
declares to Nestorius. that after the ten days prescribed and set forth by
Celestine, he would have no portion, intercourse, or place with the
priesthood. Nothing evidently is wanting to the Apostolical authority
being most fully exercised.

But Nestorius, bishop of the royal city, possessed such influence, had
deceived men's minds with such an appearance of piety, had gained so
many bishops and enjoyed such favor with the younger Theodosius and
the great men, that he could easily throw everything into commotion; and
thus there was need of an Ecumenical Council, the question being most
important, and the person of the highest dignity; because many bishops,
amongst these almost all of the East — that is, of the Patriarchate of
Antioch, and the Patriarch John himself — were ill disposed to Cyril, and
seemed to favor Nestorius: because men's feelings were divided, and the
whole empire of the East seemed to fluctuate between Cyril and
Nestorius. Such was the need of an Ecumenical Council.

499

The Emperor, moved by these and other reasons, wrote to Cyril, — "It is
our will that the holy doctrine be discussed and examined in a sacred
Synod, and that be ratified which appeareth agreeable to the fight faith,
whether the wrong party be pardoned by the Fathers or no."

Here we see three things: First, after the judgment of St. Celestine, another
is still required, that of the Council; secondly, that these two things would
rest with the Fathers, to judge of doctrine and of persons; thirdly, that the
judgment of the Council would be decisive and final.

He adds, "those who everywhere preside over the Priesthood, and through
whom we ourselves are and shall be professing the truth, must be judges of
this matter." See on whose; faith we rest. See in whose judgment is the
final and irreversible authority.

Both the Emperor affirmed, and the bishops confessed, that this was done
according to the Ecclesiastical Canons. And so all, and Celestine himself,
prepared themselves for the Council. Cyril does no more, though named
by Celestine to execute the pontifical decree, Nestorius remained in his
original rank; the sentence of the universal Council is awaited; and the
Emperor had expressly decreed, "that before the assembling and common
sentence of the most holy Council, no change should be made in any
matter at all, on any private authority." Rightly, and in order; for this was
demanded by the majesty of an universal Council. Wherefore, both Cyril
obeyed and the bishops rested. And it was established, that although the
sentence of the Roman Pontiff on matters of Faith, and on persons judged
for violation of the Faith, had been passed and promulged, all was
suspended, while the authority of the universal Council was awaited.

Having gone over what preceded the Council, we review the acts of the
Council itself, and begin with the first course of proceeding. After,
therefore, the bishops and Nestorius himself were come to Ephesus, the
universal Council began, Cyril being president, and representing Celestine,
as being appointed by the Pontiff himself to execute his sentence. In the
first course of proceeding this was done. First, the above-mentioned letter
of the Emperor was read, that an Ecumenical Council should be held, and
all proceedings in the mean time be suspended; this letter, I say, was read,
and placed on the Acts, and it was up-proved by the Fathers, that all the
decrees of Celestine in the matter of Nestorius had been suspended until

500

the holy Council should give its sentence. You will ask if it was the will of
the Council merely that the Emperor should be allowed to prohibit, in the
interim, effect being given to the sentence of the Apostolic See. Not so,
according to the Acts; but rather, by the intervention of a General
Council' s authority (the convocation of which, according to the discipline
of those times, was left to the Emperor), the Council itself understood that
all proceedings were of course suspended, and depended on the sentence
of the Council. Wherefore, though the decree of the Pontiff had been
promulged and notified, and the ten days had long been past, Nestorius
was held by the Council itself to be a bishop, and called by the name of
most religious bishop, and by that name, too, thrice cited and summoned
to take his seat with the other bishops in the holy Council; for this
expression, "to take his seat," is distinctly written; and it is added, "in
order to answer to what was charged against him." For it was their full
purpose that he should recognize in whatever way, the Ecumenical
Council, as he would then afterwards be, beyond doubt, answerable to it;
but he refused to come, and chose to have his doors besieged with an
armed force, that no one might approach him.

Thereupon, as the Emperor commanded, and the Canons required, the rule
of Faith was set forth, and the Nicene Creed read, as the standard to which
all should be referred, and then the letters of Cyril and Nestorius were
examined in order. The letter of Cyril was first brought before the
judgment of the Council. That letter, I mean, concerning the Faith, to
Nestorius, so expressly approved by Pope Celestine, of which he had
declared to Cyril, "We see that you hold and maintain all that we hold and
maintain"; which, by the decree against Nestorius, published to all
Churches, he had approved, and wishes to be considered as a canonical
monition against Nestorius: that letter, I repeat, was examine, at the
proposition of Cyril himself, in these words: "I am persuaded that I have
in nothing departed from the orthodox Faith, or the Nicene Creed;
wherefore I beseech your Holiness to set forth openly whether I have
written this correctly, blamelessly, and in accordance with that holy
Council."

And are there those who say that questions concerning the Faith, once
judged by the Roman Pontiff on his Apostolical authority, are examined in
general Councils, in order to understand their contents, but, not to decide

501

on their substance, as being still a matter of question? Let them hear Cyril,
the President of the Council; let them attend to what he proposes for the
inquiry of the Council; and though he were conscious of no error in himself
yet, not to trust himself, he asked for the sentence of the Council in these
words-"whether I have written correctly and blamelessly, or not." This
Cyril, the chief of the Council, proposes for their consideration. Who ever
even heard it whispered that, after a final and irreversible judgment of the
Church on a matter of Faith, any such inquiry or question was made? It
was never done, for that would be to doubt about the Faith itself, when
declared and discussed. But this was done after the judgment of Pope
Celestine; neither Cyril, nor anyone else, thought of any other course: that,
therefore, was not a final and irreversible judgment.

In answer to this question the Fathers in order give their judgment — "
that the Nicene Creed, and the letter of Cyril, in all things agree and
harmonize." Here is inquiry and examination, and then judgment. The Acts
speak for themselves — we say not here a word.

Next that letter of Nestorius was produced, which Celestine had
pronounced blasphemous and impious. It is read: then at the instance of
Cyril it is examined, "whether this, too, be agreeable to the Faith set forth
by the holy Council of the Nicene Fathers, or not." It is precisely the same
form according to which Cyril's letter was examined. The Fathers, in
order, give judgment that it disagreed from the Nicene Creed, and was,
therefore, censurable. The letter of Nestorius is disapproved in the same
manner, by the same rule, by which that of Cyril was approved. Here,
twice in the same proceeding of the Council of Ephesus, a judgment of the
Roman Pontiff concerning the Catholic Faith, uttered and published, is
reconsidered. What he had approved, and what he had disapproved, is
equally examined, and, only after examination, confirmed.

In the mean time, the bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the presbyter
Philip, had been chosen by Celestine to be present at the Council of
Ephesus, with a special commission from the Apostolic See, and the
whole Council of the West. So they come from Rome to Ephesus, and
appear at the holy Council, and here the second procedure commences.

After reading the letter of Celestine, the Legates, in pursuance, say to the
bishops: "Let your Holiness consider the form of the letters of the holy

502

and venerable Pope Celestine the Bishop, who hath exhorted your
Holiness, not as instructing those who are ignorant, but as reminding those
who are aware: in order that you may command to be completely and
finally settled according to the Canon of our common Faith, and the utility
of the Catholic Church, what he has before determined, and has now the
goodness to remind you of." This is the advantage of a Council; after
whose sentence there is no new discussion, or new judgment, but merely
execution. And this the Legates request to be commanded by the Council,
in which they recognize that supreme authority.

It behooved, also, that the Legates, sent to the Council on a special
mission, should understand whether the proceedings against Nestorius had
been pursued according to the requisition of the Canons, and due respect
to the Apostolic See. This we have already often said. Wherefore, with
reason, they require the Acts to be communicated, "that we, too," say
they, "may confirm them." The proceedings themselves will declare what
that confirmation means. After that, at the request of the Legates, the Acts
against Nestorius were given them, they thus report about them at the
third procedure: "We have found all things judged canonically, and
according to the Church's discipline." Therefore judgments of the
Apostolic See are canonically and, according to the Church's discipline,
reconsidered, after deliberation, in a General Council, and judgment passed
upon them. After the Legates had approved the Acts against Nestorius
communicated to them, they request that all which had been read and done
at, Ephesus from the beginning, should be read afresh in public Session,
"in order," they say, "that obeying the form of the most holy Pope
Celestine, who hath committed this care to us, we may be enabled to
confirm the judgment also of your Holiness." After these all had been read
afresh, and the Legates agreed to them, Cyril proposes to the holy
Council, "That the Legates, by their signature, as was customary, should
make plain and manifest their canonical agreement with the Council." To
this question of Cyril the Council thus answers, and decrees that the
Legates, by their subscription, confirm the Acts; by which place tiffs
confirmation, spoken of by the Council, is clearly nothing else but to make
their assent plain and manifest, as Cyril proposed.

Finally, Celestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter, sends
a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins: "At length

503

we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils." The learned reader understands
where he recognizes the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation of
Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council, viz., of the
whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: "We see, that you, with us, have
executed this matter so faithfully transacted." All decree, and all execute,
that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence Celestine adds, "We have
been informed of a just deposition, and a still juster exaltation:" the
deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the Roman See, but brought to
a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a full and complete
settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of Maximianus, who was
substituted in place of Nestorius immediately after the Ephesine decrees;
this is the conclusion of the question. Even Celestine himself recognizes
this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment, but in that
of an Ecumenical Council. And this was done in that Council in which it is
admitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set
forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ,.
At least the Holy Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and
magnificent encomiums, concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and
"Peter the head and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic
Church, and by Christ's authority administering the keys, who to this
very time lives ever, and exercises judgment, in his successors." This, he
says, after having seen all the Acts of the Council itself, which we have
mentioned, so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of
Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council,
and the judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matters of
Faith held after the Apostolic See.

NOTE ON THE EMPEROR'S EDICT TO THE SYNOD.

Neither of the Emperors could personally attend the Council of Ephesus
and accordingly Theodosius II. appointed the Count Candidian, Captain of
the imperial bodyguard, the protector of the council, to sit in the room of
the Emperors. In making this appointment he addressed an edict to the
synod which will be found in the Concilia and of which Hefele gives the
following synopsis.

504
(Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 43.)

Candidian is to take no immediate part in the discussions on contested
points of faith, for it is not becoming that one who does not belong to the
number of the bishops should mix himself up in the examination and
decision of theological controversies. On the contrary, Candidian was to
remove from the city the monks and laymen who had come or should
afterwards come to Ephesus out of curiosity, so that disorder and
confusion should not be caused by those who were in no way needed for
the examination of the sacred doctrines. He was, besides, to watch lest the
discussions among the members of the Synod themselves should
degenerate into violent disputes and hinder the more exact investigation of
truth; and, on the contrary, see that every statement should be heard with
attention, and that every one put forward in view, or his objections,
without let or hindrance, so that at last an unanimous decision might be
arrived at in peace by the holy Synod. But above all, Candidian was to
take care that no member of the Synod should attempt, before the close of
the transactions, to go home, or to the court, or elsewhere. Moreover, he
was not to allow that any other matter of controversy should be taken into
consideration before the settlement of the principal point of doctrine
before the Council.

505

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

[Before the arrival of the Papal Legates.]

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia Tom. III., col. 459 et seqq.)

The Nicene Synod set forth this faith: We believe in one God, etc.

When this creed had been recited, Peter the Presbyter of Alexandria, and
primicerius of the notaries said:

We have in our hands the letter of the most holy and most reverend
archbishop Cyril, which he wrote to the most reverend Nestorius, filled
with counsel and advice, on account of his aberration from the right faith. I
will read this if your holiness [i.e., the holy Synod] so orders. The letter
began as follows:

KocxoccpX'uocpotiGi jxev (be, ockoijco k.t.X.
Intelligo quosdam meae, etc.

THE EPISTLE OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 315; Migne, Patr. Groec,
Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.]; Epist. iv., co]. 43.)

To the most religious and beloved of God, fellow minister Nestorius, Cyril
sends greeting in the Lord.

I hear that some are rashly talking of the estimation in which I hold your
holiness, and that this is frequently the case especially at the times that

506

meetings are held of those in authority. And perchance they think in so
doing to say something agreeable to you, but they speak senselessly, for
they have suffered no injustice at my hands, but have been exposed by me
only to their profit; this man as an oppressor of the blind and needy, and
that as one who wounded his mother with a sword. Another because he
stole, in collusion with his waiting maid, another's money, and had always
labored under the imputation of such like crimes as no one would wish
even one of his bitterest enemies to be laden with.' I take little reckoning
of the words of such people, for the disciple is not above his Master, nor
would I stretch the measure of my narrow brain above the Fathers, for no
matter what path of life one pursues it is hardly possible to escape the
smirching of the wicked, whose months are full of cursing and bitterness,
and who at the last must give an account to the Judge of all.

But I return to the point which especially I had in mind. And now I urge
you, as a brother in the Lord, to propose the word of teaching and the
doctrine of the faith with all accuracy to the people, and to consider that
the giving of scandal to one even of the least of those who believe in
Christ, exposes a body to the unbearable indignation of God. And of how
great diligence and skill there is need when the multitude of those grieved is
so great, so that we may administer the healing word of truth to them that
seek it. But this we shall accomplish most excellently if we shall turn over
the words of the holy Fathers, and are zealous to obey their commands,
proving ourselves, whether we be in the faith according to that which is
written, and conform our thoughts to their upright and it-reprehensible
teaching.

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born
according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of
Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate,
and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended
into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow,
considering what is me. ant by the Word of God being incarnate and made
man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and
became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul
and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself
flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable
manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing

507

or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a
person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union,
there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is
not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity
make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and
inexpressible union. So then he who had an existence before all ages and
was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a
woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence
in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the
Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed
before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of
existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to
himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said
to be born after the flesh; for the was not first born a common man of the
holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the
union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the
flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we
say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his
own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for
the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal,
but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, lie is
also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering
was in a suffering body. In the same manner also we conceive respecting
his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible,
and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by
the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have
suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own
nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I
have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised
again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if tie had fallen into
corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again. We,
therefore, confess one Christ and Lord, not as worshipping, a man with
the Word (lest this expression "with the Word" should suggest to the mind
the idea of division), but worshipping him as one and the same, forasmuch
as the body of the Word, with which he sits with the Father, is not
separated from the Word himself, not as if two sons were sitting with him,
but one by the union with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal

508

union as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speaking of
two sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to say, that he who
was properly man was honored with the appellation of Son, and that he
who is properly the Word of God, has by nature both the name and the
reality of Sonship. We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus
Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound faith to hold, as
some do, an union of persons; for the Scripture has not said that the Word
united to himself the person of man, but that he was made flesh. This
expression, however, "the Word was made flesh," can mean nothing else
but that he partook of flesh and blood like to us; he made our body his
own, and came forth man from a woman, not casting off his existence as
God, or his generation of God the Father, but even in taking to himself
flesh remaining what he was. This the declaration of the correct faith
proclaims everywhere. This was the sentiment of the holy Fathers;
therefore they ventured to call the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, not as
if the nature of the Word or his divinity had its beginning from the holy
Virgin, but because of her was born that holy body with a rational soul, to
which the Word being personally united is said to be born according to the
flesh. These things, therefore, I now write unto you for the love of Christ,
beseeching you as a brother, and testifying to you before Christ and the
elect angels, that you would both think and teach these things with us, that
the peace of the Churches may be preserved and the bond of concord and
love continue unbroken amongst the Priests of God.

509

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I. (CONTINUED).

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 462.)

And after the letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, said: This
holy and great Synod has heard what I wrote to the most religious
Nestorius, defending the right faith. I think that I have in no respect
departed from the true statement of the faith, that is from the creed set
forth by the holy and great synod formerly assembled at Nice. Wherefore I
desire your holiness [i.e. the Council] to say whether rightly and
blamelessly and in accordance with that holy synod I have written these
things or no.

[A number of bishops then gave their opinion, all favorable to Cyril; after
these individual opinions the Acts continue (col. 491):]

And all the rest of the bishops in the order of their rank deposed to the
same things, and so believed, according as the Fathers had set forth, and as
the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril to Nestorius the bishop
declared.

Palladius, the bishop of Amused, said, The next thing to be done is to read
the letter of the most reverend Nestorius, of which the most religious
presbyter Peter made mention; so that we may understand whether or no
it agrees with the exposition of the Nicene fathers....

And after this letter was read, Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, said, What
seems good to this holy and great synod with regard to the letter just read?
Does it also seem to be consonant to the faith set forth by the holy Synod
assembled in the city of Nice?

510

[The bishops, then as before, individually express their opinion, and at last
the Acts continue (col. 502):]

All the bishops cried out together: Whoever does not anathematize
Nestorius let him be anathema. Such an one the right faith anathematizes;
such an one the holy Synod anathematizes. Whoever communicates with
Nestorius let him be anathema! We anathematize all the apostles of
Nestorius: we all anathematize Nestorius as a heretic: let all such as
communicate with Nestorius be anathema, etc., etc.

Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem said: Let the letter of the most holy and
reverend Coelestine, archbishop of the Church of Rome, be read, which he
wrote concerning the faith.

[The letter of Coelestine was read and no opinion expressed.]

Peter the presbyter of Alexandria, and primicerius of the notaries said:
Altogether in agreement with the things just read are those which his
holiness Cyril our most pious bishop wrote, which I now have at hand,
and will read if your piety so shall order.

[The letter was read which begins thus:]
Tot> Zcoxf|po<; fipcov Xeyovxo<; evocpyax; k.t.X.

Cum Salvator noster, etc.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO ST. CYRIL'S
ANATHEMATISMS.

There has been some difference of opinion among the learned as to
whether St. Cyril's Synodal letter which has at its end the anathemas
against Nestorius, which hereafter follow, was formally approved at the
Council of Ephesus. The matter is one only of archeological and historical
interest for from a theological point of view the question is entirely
uninteresting, since there is no possible doubt that the synod endorsed St.
Cyril's teaching and for that express reason proceeded at their first session

511

to excommunicate Nestorius. Further there is no one that disputes that the
anathematisms were received at the next General Council, i.e., of
Chalcedon, only twenty years later, and that Theodoret was condemned
by the Fifth Ecumenical Council because he wrote against these very
Anathemas. This being the case, to those who value the decrees of
Ecumenical Councils because of their ecumenical character, it is quite
immaterial whether these anathematisms were received and approved by
the third Council or no, provided, which is indisputably the case, they
have been approved by some one council of ecumenical authority, so as to
become thereby part and parcel of the ecumenical faith of the Church.

But the historical question is one of some interest, and I shall very briefly
consider it. We have indeed the "Acta" of this council, but I cannot but
agree with the very learned Jesuit Petavius and the Gallican Tillemont in
thinking them in a very unsatisfactory condition. I am fully aware of the
temerity of making such a suggestion, but I cannot help feeling that in the
remarks of the Roman representatives, especially in those of the
presbyter-legate, there is some anachronism. Be this as it may, it is a fact
that the Acts do not recite that this letter of Cyril's was read, nor do they
state that the Anathemas were received. I would suggest, however, that for
those who defend John of Antioch, and criticize the action of St. Cyril, it
is the height of inconsistency to deny that the Council adopted the
Anathemas. If it was the bitterly partisan assembly that they would have
us believe, absolutely under the control of Cyril, there is nothing that, a
priori, they would have been more sure to do than adopt the Anathemas
which were universally looked upon as the very fulcrum on which the
whole matter turned.

Bishop Hefele was at first of opinion that the letter was merely read, being
led to this conclusion by the silence of the Acts with regard to any
acceptance of it, and indeed at first wrote on that side, but he afterwards
saw grounds to change his mind and expresses them with his usual
clearness, in the following words:

(Hefele, Hist, of Councils. Vol. III., p. 48, note 2.)

We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at
Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the
subject in the Acts. But in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (collatio vj.) it is

512

said: "The holy Council at Chalcedon approved this teaching of Cyril of
blessed memory, and received his Synodical letters, to one of which are
appended the xij. anathemas" (Mansi, t. ix., p. 341; Hardouin, t. iij., p.
167). If, however, the anathematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at
Chalcedon, there was even more reason for doing so at Ephesus. And Ibas,
in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that the Synod of
Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the same was asserted
even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter to the Emperor.

From all these considerations it would seem that Tillemont' s conclusion is
well rounded that the Synod certainly discussed the anathemas of Cyril in
detail, but that here, as in many other places, there are parts of the Acts
lacking. I shall add the opinion of Petavius.

(Petavius, De Incarnatione, Lib. VI., cap. xvij.)

The Acts do not tell us what judgment the Synod of Ephesus gave with
respect to the third letter of Cyril, and with regard to the anathemas
attached to it. But the Acts in other respects also have not come down to
us in their integrity. That that third letter was received and approved by
the Ephesine Council there can be no doubt, and this the Catholics shewed
in their dispute with the Acephali in the Collation held at Constantinople
under the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 811. For at that
memorable meeting some-tiring was shewn forth concerning this letter and
its anathemas, which has a connection with the matter in hand, and
therefore must not be omitted. At that meeting the Opposers, that is the
Acephali, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, made this objection
against that Council: "The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is
inserted in the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to be
synodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it?" etc., etc.

From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, then as now, was that
the Twelve Anathemas were defined as part of the faith by the Council of
Ephesus. Perhaps I may close this treatment of the subject in the words of
Denziger, being the caption he gives the xij. Anathematisms in his
Enchiridion, under "Decrees of the Third Ecumenical Council, that of
Ephesus." "The Third Synod received these anathematisms; the Fourth
Synod placed them in its Acts and styled the Epistles of Cyril
'Canonical' ; the Fifth Synod defended them."

513

THE EPISTLE OF CYRIL TO NESTORIUS WITH THE XII.
ANATHEMATISMS.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. Ill, col. 395; Migne, Parr. Groec,
Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.], col. 105 et seqq.)

To the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril and
the synod assembled in Alexandria, of the Egyptian Province, Greeting in
the Lord.

When our Savior says clearly: "He that loveth father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me
is not worthy of me," what is to become of us, from whom your Holiness
requires that we love you more than Christ the Savior of us all? Who can
help us in the day of judgment, or what kind of excuse shall we find for
thus keeping silence so long, with regard to the blasphemies made by you
against him? If you injured yourself alone, by teaching and holding such
things, perhaps it would be less matter; but you have greatly scandalized
the whole Church, and have cast among the people the leaven of a strange
and new heresy. And not to those there [i.e. at Constantinople] on]y; but
also to those everywhere [the books of your explanation were sent]. How
can we any longer, under these circumstances, make a defense for our
silence, or how shall we not be forced to remember that Christ said:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his
father, and the daughter against her mother." For if faith be injured, let
there be lost the honor due to parents, as stale and tottering, let even the
law of tender love towards children and brothers be silenced, let death be
better to the pious than living; "that they might obtain a better
resurrection," as it is written.

Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod which met in
great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverend brother
and fellow-minister, Celestine the Bishop, also testify by this third letter
to you, and counsel you to abstain from these mischievous and distorted
dogmas, which you hold arid teach, and to receive the right faith, handed

514

down to the churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and
Evangelists, who "were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word." And if
your holiness have not a mind to this according to the limits defined in the
writings of our brother of blessed memory and most reverend
fellow-minister Celestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, be well assured
then that you have no lot with us, nor place or standing (Xoyov) among the
priests and bishops of God. For it is not possible for us to overlook the
churches thus troubled, and the people scandalized, and the right faith set
aside, and the sheep scattered by you, who ought to save them, if indeed
we are ourselves adherents of the right faith, and followers of the devotion
of the holy fathers. And we are in communion with all those laymen and
clergymen cast out or deposed by your holiness on account of the faith;
for it is not right that those, who resolved to believe rightly, should suffer
by your choice; for they do well in opposing you. This very thing you
have mentioned in your epistle written to our most holy and
fellow-bishop Celestine of great Rome.

But it would not be sufficient for your reverence to confess with us only
the symbol of the faith set out some time ago by the Holy Ghost at the
great and holy synod convened in Nice: for you have not held and
interpreted it rightly, but rather perversely; even though you confess with
your voice the form of words. But in addition, in writing and by oath, you
must confess that you also anathematize those polluted and unholy
dogmas of yours, and that you will hold and teach that which we all,
bishops, teachers, and leaders of the people both East and West, hold. The
holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your
Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We
have added to these our own letters and that which it is necessary for you
to hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Now this is
the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox
Bishops, both East and West, agree:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God,
Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in
heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came

515

down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose again
the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to
judge both the quick and tile dead. And in the Holy Ghost: But those that
say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he
was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that
he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was
capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes."

Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they
made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their
opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only
begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True
God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were
made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our
salvation, making himself of no reputation (Koc9e\<; eocuxov ei<;
Kevcoaiv), was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the holy
Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to
birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that
which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what
he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was
changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the
Word of God has laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and
absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the
Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even
in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a
fellow-ruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity
and dimension, and cannot have limits.

Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance,
we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from
the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were
mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for
that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the
Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different
one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God
the Father with his own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us,

516

although it is he himself who gives the Spirit to those who are worthy and
not in measure, according to the saying of the blessed Evangelist John.

But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man
born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man; for
although the Word tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ
"dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"; but we understand that be
became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define
that that tabernacling in him was according to equality (koctoc tov ioov ev
ocut(5 xpoTtov). But being made one koctoc cp-uoiv, and not converted into
flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of
man does in his own body.

One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained
only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or
of authority. For it is not equality of honor which unites natures; for then
Peter and John, who were of equal honor with each other, being both
Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are
not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be
apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness (npbq evcoaov
(p-uaiKTiv). Nor yet according to relative participation, as we are also
joined to the Lord, as it is written "we are one Spirit in him." Rather we
deprecate the term of "junction" (cxuvoccpeiocc;) as not having sufficiently
signified the oneness. But we do not call the Word of God the Father, the
God nor the Lord of Christ, lest we openly cut in two the one Christ, the
Son and Lord, and fall under the charge of blasphemy, making him the God
and Lord of himself. For the Word of God, as we have said already, was
made hypostatically one in flesh, yet he is God of all and he rules all; but
he is not the slave of himself, nor his own Lord. For it is foolish, or rather
impious, to think or teach thus. For he said that God was his Father,
although he was God by nature, and of his substance. Yet we are not
ignorant that while he remained God, he also became man and subject to
God, according to the law suitable to the nature of the manhood. But how
could he become the God or Lord of himself? Consequently as man, and
with regard to the measure of his humiliation, it is said that he is equally
with us subject to God; thus he became under the Law, although as God he
spake the Law and was the Law-giver.

517

We are careful also how we say about Christ: "I worship the One clothed
on account of the One clothing him, and on account of the Unseen, I
worship the Seen." It is horrible to say in this connection as follows: "The
assumed as well as the assuming have the name of God." For the saying of
this divides again Christ into two, and puts the man separately by himself
and God also by himself. For this saying denies openly the Unity
according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist
together with the other; but Jesus Christ is considered as One, the
Only-begotten Son, to be honored with one adoration together with his
own flesh.

We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father, and
Only-begotten God; and although according to his own nature he was not
subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in the flesh according to the
Scriptures, and although impassible, yet in his Crucified Body he made his
own the sufferings of his own flesh; and by the grace of God he tasted
death for all: he gave his own Body thereto, although he was by nature
himself the life and the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down
death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might become
the first born from the dead, and the first-fruits of them that slept. And
that he might make a way for the nature of man to attain incorruption, by
the grace of God (as we just now said), he tasted death for every man, and
after three days rose again, having despoiled hell. So although it is said that
the resurrection of the dead was through man, yet we understand that man
to have been the Word of God, and the power of death was loosed through
him, and he shall come in the fullness of time as the One Son and Lord, in
the glory of the Father, in order to judge the world in righteousness, as it is
written.

We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the
flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his
resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the
Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical
thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the
Precious Blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do
we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with
the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling,
but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is

518

the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his
Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
Blood. For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can
the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?) but as having become
truly the very own of him who for us both became and was called Son of
Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Savior said of himself, we do not
divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is he, the one and
only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two (ek Stjo) and
they diverse, yet he has joined them in an indivisible union, just as
everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body,
but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the
human and the divine to the same person (nap e\bq £ipf|a9oci).

For when as God he speaks about himself: "He who hath seen me hath
seen the Father," and "I and my Father are one," we consider his ineffable
divine nature according to which he is One with his Father through the
identity of essence — "The image and impress and brightness of his
glory." But when not scorning the measure of his humanity, he said to the
Jews: "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth."
Again no less than before we recognize that he is the Word of God from
his identity and likeness to the Father and from the circumstances of his
humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that being by nature God, he
became flesh, that is, a man endowed with a reasonable soul, what reason
can certain ones have to be ashamed of this language about him, which is
suitable to him as man? For if he should reject the words suitable to him as
man, who compelled him to become man like us? And as he humbled
himself to a voluntary abasement (kevcogiv) for us, for what cause can
any one reject the words suitable to such abasement? Therefore all the
words which are read in the Gospels are to be applied to One Person, to
One hypostasis of the Word Incarnate. For the Lord Jesus Christ is One,
according to the Scriptures, although he is called "the Apostle and High
Priest of our profession," as offering to God and the Father the confession
of faith which we make to him, and through him to God even the Father
and also to the Holy Spirit; yet we say he is, according to nature, the
Only-begotten of God. And not to any man different from him do we
assign the name of priesthood, and the thing, for be became "the Mediator

519

between God and men," and a Reconciler unto peace, having offered
himself as a sweet smelling savor to God and the Father. Therefore also he
said: "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou
prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no
pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of
me) to do thy will, O God." For on account of us he offered his body as a
sweet smelling savor, and not for himself; for what offering or sacrifice
was needed for himself, who as God existed above all sins? For "all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God," so that we became prone to
fall, and the nature of man has fallen into sin, yet not so he (and therefore
we fall short of his glory). How then can there be further doubt that the
true Lamb died for us and on our account? And to say that he offered
himself for himself and us, could in no way escape the charge of impiety.
For he never committed a fault at all, neither did he sin. What offering then
did he need, not having sin for which sacrifices are rightly offered? But
when he spoke about the Spirit, he said: "He shall glorify me." If we think
rightly, we do not say that the One Christ and Son as needing glory from
another received glory from the Holy Spirit; for neither greater than he nor
above him is his Spirit, but because he used the Holy Spirit to show forth
his own divinity in his mighty works, therefore he is said to have been
glorified by him just as if any one of us should say concerning his inherent
strength for example, or his knowledge of anything, "They glorified me.
"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of him by
himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son; but he is not different from
him; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is
sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father. When then
the Spirit worked miracles through the hands of the holy apostles after the
Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, he glorified him. For it is
believed that he who works through his own Spirit is God according to
nature. Therefore he said: "He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto
you." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wise and powerful through
some sharing with another; for he is all perfect and in need of no good
thing. Since, therefore, he is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the
Father (that is, of the Son), he is evidently Wisdom and Power.

And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with
flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God,

520

not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the
flesh.

For "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the
Word was with God," and he is the Maker of the ages, coeternal with the
Father, and Creator of all; but, as we have already said, since he united to
himself hypostatically human nature from her womb, also he subjected
himself to birth as man, not as needing necessarily in his own nature birth
in time and in these last times of the world, but in order that he might bless
the beginning of our existence, and that that which sent the earthly bodies
of our whole race to death, might lose its power for the future by his being
born of a woman in the flesh. And this: "In sorrow thou shalt bring forth
children," being removed through him, he showed the truth of that spoken
by the prophet," Strong death swallowed them up, and again God hath
wiped away every tear from off all faces." For this cause also we say that
he attended, having been called, and also blessed, the marriage in Cana of
Galilee, with his holy Apostles in accordance with the economy. We have
been taught to hold these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and
all the God-inspired Scriptures, and in the true confessions of the blessed
Fathers.

To all these your reverence also should agree, and give heed, without any
guile. And what it is necessary your reverence should anathematize we
have subjoined to our epistle.

521

THE XII. ANATHEMATISMS OF ST. CYRIL
AGAINST ESTORIUS

(Found in St. Cyril's Opera. Migne, Pat. Graec, Tom. LXXVIL, Col. 119;
and the Concilia.)

IF anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that
therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Geotokoc,), inasmuch as
in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The
Word was made flesh"]: let him be anathema.

NOTES

THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE HERETIC NESTORIUS
AGAINST CYRIL.

(Found best in Migne' s edition of Marius Mercator.)

If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with
us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he
assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary
the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is
Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself
into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead
visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.

522

PETAVIUS.

(De Incarnatione, Lib. vj. cap. xvij.)

In this anathematism certain words are found in the Greek copy of
Dionysius which are lacking in the ordinary copies, viz. "according as it is
written, 'And the Word was made flesh';" unless forsooth Dionysius
supplied them of his own authority. For in the Lateran Synod in the time
of Martin I. this anathematism was quoted without the appended words.

This anathematism breaks to pieces the chief strength of the Nestorian
impiety For it sets forth two facts. The one that the Emmanuel, that is he
who was born of a woman and dwelt with us, is God: the other, that Mary
who bare such an one is Mother of God. That Christ is God is clearly
proved from the Nicene Creed, and he shews that the same that was in the
beginning the Son of God, afterwards took flesh and was born of Mary,
without any change or confusion of natures.

St. Cyril explains that by aocpKiK(5<; carnaliter, he meant nothing else than
koctoc odpKoc secundum carnem, "according to the flesh." And it was
necessary to use this expression to overthrow the perfidy of Nestorius; so
that we may understand that the most holy Virgin was the parent not of a
simple and bare man, but of God the Word, not in that he was God, but in
that he had taken flesh. For God the Father was the parent of the same
Son9e'iK(3<; (divinely) as his mother was aocpKiK(5<; (after the flesh). And
the word (aapKiK©<;) in no degree lessens the dignity of his begetting and
bringing forth; for it shews that his flesh was not simulated or shadowed
forth; but true and like to ours. Amphilochius distinctly uses the word,
saying "Except he had been born carnally (aapKiK&c,) never wouldest
thou have been born spiritually (7tv£i>|xocTiK(5<;) " Cf. St. Gregory
Nazianzen {Oral. 51).

Theodoret misunderstood St. Cyril to teach in this first anathematism that
the Word was changed into the flesh he assumed. But Cyril rightly treated
this whole accusation as a foolish calumny.

523

EXCURSUS ON THE WORD eecnoKcx;

There have been some who have tried to reduce all the great theological
controversies on the Trinity and on the Incarnation to mere logomachies,
and have jeered at those who could waste their time and energies over such
trivialities. For example, it has been said that the real difference between
Arius and Athanasius was nothing more nor less than an iota, and that
even Athanasius himself, in his more placid, and therefore presumably
more rational moods, was willing to hold communion with those who
differed from him and who still rejected the homousion. But however
catching and brilliant such remarks may be, they lack all solid foundation
in truth. It is perfectly manifest that a person so entirely lacking in
discrimination as not to see the enormous difference between identity and
likeness is not one whose opinion on such a point can be of much value. A
brilliant historian is not necessarily an accurate historian, far less need he
be a safe guide in matters of theological definition.

A similar attempt to reduce to a logomachy the difference between the
Catholic faith and Nestorianism has been made by some writers of
undoubted learning among Protestants, notably by Fuchs and Schrockh.
But as in the case of the homousios so, too, in the case of the theotocos the
word expresses a great, necessary, and fundamental doctrine of the
Catholic faith. It is not a matter of words, but of things, and the mind most
unskilled in theology cannot fail to grasp the enormous difference there is
between affirming, as does Nestorianism, that a God indwelt a man with a
human personality of his own distinct from the personality of the
indwelling God; and that God assumed to himself human nature, that is a
human body and a human soul, but without human personality.

(Wm. Bright, St. Leo on the Incarnation, pp. 160, 161.)

It is, then, clear that the question raised by the wide circulation of the
discourses of Nestorius as archbishop of Constantinople was not verbal,
but vital. Much of his language was irrelevant, and indicated some
confusedness of thought: much would, of itself, admit of an orthodox
construction; in one of the latest of his sermons, which Gamier dates on
Sunday, December 14, 430, he grants that "Theotocos" might be used as

524

signifying that "the temple which was formed in Mary by the Holy Spirit
was united to the Godhead;" but it was impossible not to ask whether by
"the temple" he meant the body of Jesus, or Jesus himself regarded as a
human individual existing 1810c iSik(S<; ova pepoq — as Cyril represents
his theory — and whether by "union" he meant more than a close alliance,
ejusdem generis, in the last analysis, with the relation between God and
every saint, or, indeed, every Christian in true moral fellowship with him
— an alliance which would amount, in Cyril's phrase, to no more than a
"relative union," and would reduce the Savior to a "Theophoros," the title
claimed of old by one of his chief martyrs. And the real identity of
Nestorius's view with that of Theodore [of Mopsuestia] was but too
plainly exhibited by such statements as occur in some of the extracts
preserved in Cyril's treatise Against Nestorius — to the effect that Christ
was one with the Word by participation in dignity; that "the man" was
partaker of Divine power, and in that sense not mere man; that he was
adored together with the Word; and that "My Lord and my God" was a
doxology to the Father; and above all, by the words spoken at Ephesus, "I
can never allow that a child of three months old was God."

It is no part of my duty to defend the truth of either the Catholic or
Nestorian proposition — each has found many adherents in most ages
since it was first started, and probably what is virtually Nestorianism is
today far more widely held among persons deemed to be orthodox than is
commonly supposed. Be this as it may, Nestorianism is clearly subversive
of the whole Catholic Doctrine of the Incarnation, and therefore the
importance of the word 0eoTOKoq cannot be exaggerated.

I shall treat the word Theotocos under two heads; Its history its meaning,
first however quoting Bp. Pearson's words on its Conciliar authority.
(Pearson, Exp. of the Creed, Art. III., n. 37). "It is plain that the Council of
Ephesus which condemned Nestorius confirmed this title Geotokoc;; I say
confirmed it; for it is evident that it was before used in the Church, by the
tumult which arose at the first denial of it by Anastasius [Nestorius's
presbyter]; and so confirmed it as received before, because they approved
the Epistles of St. Cyril, who proved it by the usage of those Fathers
which preceded him."

525
(1.) History of Word 6eoTOKO<;

It has not been unfrequently assumed that the word Theotocos was coined
to express the peculiar view of the Incarnation held by St. Cyril. Such
however, is an entire mistake. It was an old term of Catholic Theology,
and the very word was used by bishop Alexander in a letter from the
synod held at Alexandria in A.D. 320, to condemn the Arian heresy (more
than a hundred years before the meeting of the Council of Ephesus);
"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of
which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; who bore a body in
truth, not in semblance, which be derived from Mary the Mother of God
(eK xf|<; 0£ot6koi> Mocpioc<;)." The same word had been used by many
church writers among whom may be mentioned St. Athanasius, who says,
"As the flesh was born of Mary, the Mother of God, so we say that he,
the Word, was himself born of Mary" (Orat. c. Arian., iij., 14, 29, 33; also
iv., 32). See also Eusebius (Vit. Const., iij., 43); St. Cyril of Jerusalem
(Cat., x., 9); and especially Origen, who (says Bp. Pearson) "did not only
use, but expound at large the meaning of that title 0eoxoKO<; in his first
tome on the Epistle to the Romans, as Socrates and Liberatus testify." (Cf.
Origen in Dueteronomy xxii., 23; vol. ij., p. 391. A; in Luc. apud Galland,
Bib. Patr., vol. xiv., append., p. 87, D). A list is given by Dr. Routh, in his
Reliquioe Sacroe. Vol. ij., p. 215 (1st Ed.), 332 (2d Ed.).

In fact Theodore of Mopsuestia was the first to object to it, so far as we
know, writing as follows: "Mary bare Jesus, not the Word, for the Word
was and remained omnipresent, although from the beginning he dwelt in
Jesus in a peculiar manner. Thus Mary is properly the Mother of Christ
(Christotocos) but not the mother of God (Theotocos). Only figuratively,
per anaphoram, can she be called Theotocos also, because God was in
Christ in a remarkable manner. Properly she bare a man, in whom the
union with the Word was begun, but was still so little completed, that he
was not yet called the Son of God." And in another place he says: "It is
madness to say that God is born of the Virgin.... Not God, but the temple
in which God dwelt, is born of Mary." How far Theodore had departed
from the teaching of the Apostolic days may be seen by the following
quotations from St. Ignatius. "There is one only physician, of flesh and
spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of

526

Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our
Lord." Further on in the same epistle he says: "For our God, Jesus the
Christ, was born in the womb by Mary etc." With the first of these
passages Bp. Light-foot very aptly compares the following from Melito.
"Since he was incorporeal, he fashioned a body for himself of our
likeness... he was carried by Mary and clothed by his Father, he trod the
earth and he filled the heavens."

Theodore was forced by the exigencies of his position to deny the doctrine
of the communicatio idiomatum which had already at that early date come
to be well understood, at least so far as practice is concerned.

(Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Vol. iii., p. 8.)

This doctrine, as is well known is predicating the same properties of the
two natures in Christ, not in abstracto (Godhead and manhood), but in
concreto (God and man). Christ, himself had declared in St. John iii., 16:
"God... gave his only begotten Son" (namely, to death), and similarly St.
Peter declared (Acts iii., 15): "ye... killed the Prince of Life," when in fact
the being given up and being killed is a property (iS'icopoc = predicate) of
man, not of God (the only begotten, the Prince of Life). In the same way
Clement of Rome, for example, spoke of "the sufferings of God"
(7ta9r|u.ocToc Qeov (1 Ad Cor. 2), Ignatius of Antioch (Ad Ephes., c. 1, and
Ad Rom., 6) of an ocipoc and 7td0o<; Qeov Tatian of a Qebq 7t£7tov9dx;
(Ad Groecos, c. 13); Barnabas teaches (c. 7) that "the Son of God could
not suffer except on our behalf... and on our behalf he has brought the
vessel of his Spirit as a sacrifice." Similarly Irenaeus (iii., 16, 6) says, "The
Only-begotten impassible Word (unigenitus impassibilis) has become
passible" (passibilis); and Athanasius, ecrcocupcbpevov eivoci 0ebv (Ep.
ad Epictet., n. 10, t. j., p. 726. ed. Patav.)

It is, however, to be remarked that the properties of the one nature were
never transferred to the other nature in itself, but always to the Person
who is at the same time both man and God. Human attributes were not
ascribed to the Godhead, but to God, and vice versa.

For a full treatment of the figure of speech called the communicatio
idiomatum the reader is referred to the great works on Theology where it
will be found set forth at large, with its restrictions specified and with

527

examples of its use. A brief but interesting note on it will be found in St.
John Damascene's famous treatise De Fide Orthodoxa, Book III, iij.
(Migne's Pat. Groec, col. 994).

(2.) Meaning of the Word 0£Ot6ko<;

We pass now to the meaning of the word, having sufficiently traced the
history of its use. Bishop Pearson says: "This name was first in use in the
Greek Church, who, delighting in the happy compositions of that
language, called the blessed Virgin Theotocos. From whence the Latins in
imitation styled her Virginem Deiparam et Deigenitricem." In the passage
to which the words just quoted are a portion of a footnote, he says:
"Wherefore from these three, a true conception, nutrition, and parturition,
we must acknowledge that the blessed Virgin was truly and properly the
Mother of our Savior. And so is she frequently styled the Mother of Jesus
in the language of the Evangelists, and by Elizabeth particularly the
'Mother of her Lord,' as also by the general consent of the Church
(because he which was so born of her was God,) the Deipara; which being
a compound title begun in the Greek Church, was resolved into its parts
by the Latins and so the Virgin was plainly named the Mother of God."

Pearson is mistaken in supposing that the resolution of the compound
Theotocos into UT|iT|p xov 6 ecu was unknown to the early Greek
writers. Dionysius expressly calls Mary f| UT|Tr|p xo-u Qeov jicd (Contr.
Paul. Samos., Quaest. viij.); and among the Latins Mater Dei and Dei
Genetrix were (as Pearson himself confesses in note 37) used before the
time of St. Leo I. It is not an open question whether Mater Dei, Dei
Genetrix, Deipara, U-iVcrip xcuGeo-u are proper equivalents for 0£ot6ko<;.
This point has been settled by the unvarying use of the whole Church of
God throughout all the ages from that day to this, but there is, or at least
some persons have thought that there was, some question as to how
Theotocos should be translated into English.

Throughout this volume I have translated it "Mother of God," and I
propose giving my reasons for considering this the only accurate
translation of the word, both from a lexicographical and from a theological
point of view.

528

(a) It is evident that the word is a composite formed of 9eo^ = God, and
xiKxeiv = to be the mother of a child. Now I have translated the verbal
part "to be the mother of a child" because "to bear" in English does not
necessarily carry the full meaning of the Greek word, which (as Bp.
Pearson has well remarked in the passage cited above) includes
"conception, nutrition, and parturition." It has been suggested that
"God-bearer" is an exact translation. To this I object, that in the first place
it is not English; and in the second that it would be an equally and, to my
mind, more accurate translation of 0eo(p6po<; than of QeozoKoq.

Another suggestion is that it be rendered "the bringer forth of God." Again
I object that, from a rhetorical standpoint, the expression is very open to
criticism; and from a lexicographical point of view it is entirely inadequate,
for while indeed the parturition does necessarily involve in the course of
nature the previous conception and nutrition, it certainly does not express
it.

Now the word Mother does necessarily express all three of these when
used in relation to her child. The reader will remember that the question I
am discussing is not whether Mary can properly be called the Mother of
God; this Nestorius denied and many in ancient and modern times have
been found to agree with him. The question I am considering is what the
Greek word Theotocos means in English. I do not think anyone would
hesitate to translate Nestorius' s Christotocos by "Mother of Christ" and
surely the expressions are identical from a lexicographical point of view.

Liddell and Scott in their Lexicon insert the word 0eoTOKO<; as an adjective
and translate "bearing God" and add: "especially f| GeoxoKot; Mother of
God, of the Virgin, Eccl."

(b) It only remains to consider whether there is from a theological point of
view any objection to the translation, "Mother of God." It is true that
some persons have thought that such a rendering implied that the Godhead
has its origin in Mary, but this was the very objection which Nestorius
and his followers urged against the word Theotocos, and this being the
case, it constitutes a strong argument in favor of the accuracy of the
rendering. Of course the answer to the objection in each case is the same, it
is not of the Godhead that Mary is the Mother, but of the Incarnate Son,
who is God. "Mother" expresses exactly the relation to the incarnate Son

529

which St. Cyril, the Council of Ephesus, and all succeeding, not to say also
preceding, ages of Catholics, rightly or wrongly, ascribe to Mary. All that
every child derives from its Mother that God the Son derived from Mary,
and this without the co-operation of any man, but by the direct operation
of the Holy Ghost, so that in a fuller, truer, and more perfect sense, Mary
is the Mother of God the Son in his incarnation, than any other earthly
mother is of her son.

I therefore consider it certain that no scholar who can and will divest
himself of theological bias, can doubt that "Mother of God" is the most
accurate translation of the term Theotocos.

n.

IF anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united
hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only
Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

NOTES
NESTORIUS.

n.

If any one asserts that, at the union of the Logos with the flesh, the divine
Essence moved from one place to another; or says that the flesh is capable
of receiving the divine nature, and that it has been partially united with the
flesh; or ascribes to the flesh, by reason of its reception of God, an
extension to the infinite and boundless, and says that God and man are one
and the same in nature; let him be anathema.

530

ffl.

If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the
one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens
according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a
coming together (guvoSco) which is made by natural union (evcoaiv
(pt)aiKT|v): let him be anathema.

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

m.

If any one says that Christ, who is also Emmanuel, is One, not [merely] in
consequence of connection, but [also] in nature, and does not acknowledge
the connection (cxuvacpeioc) of the two natures, that of the Logos and of
the assumed manhood, in one Son, as still continuing without mingling; let
him be anathema.

HEFELE

(Hist, of the Coucn., Vol. III., p. 7.)

Theodore [of Mopsuestia, and in this he was followed by Nestorius,] (and
here is his fundamental error,) not merely maintained the existence of two
natures in Christ, but of two persons, as, he says himself, no subsistence
can be thought of as perfect without personality. As however, he did not
ignore the fact that the consciousness of the Church rejected such a double
personality in Christ, he endeavored to get rid of the difficulty, and he
repeatedly says expressly: "The two natures united together make only

531

one Person, as man and wife are only one flesh.... If we consider the
natures in their distinction, we should define the nature of the Logos as
perfect and complete, and so also his Person, and again the nature and the
person of the man as perfect and complete. If, on the other hand, we have
regard to the union (cruvoccpeioc) we say it is one Person." The very
illustration of the union of man and wife shows that Theodore did not
suppose a true union of the two natures in Christ, but that his notion was
rather that of an external connection of the two. The expression cruvoccpeioc
moreover, which he selected here instead of the term evcooiv which he
elsewhere employs, being derived from cruvocTtxco [to join together],
expresses only an external connection, a fixing together, and is therefore
expressly rejected in later times by the doctors of the Church. And again,
Theodore designates a merely external connection also in the phrase
already quoted, to the effect that "the Logos dwells in the man assumed as
in a temple." As a temple and the statue set up within it are one whole
merely in outward appearance, so the Godhead and manhood in Christ
appear only from without in their actuality as one Person, while they
remain essentially two Persons.

IV.

If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those
expressions ((pcovoc<;) which are contained in the Evangelical and
Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the
Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate
from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God
the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be
anathema.

532

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

IV.

If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and Apostolic letters,
which refer to the two natures of Christ, to one only of those natures, and
even ascribes suffering to the divine Word, both in the flesh and in the
Godhead; let him be anathema.

ST. CYRIL.

(Apol. contra Orientates.)

For we neither teach the division of the hypostases after the union, nor do
we say that the nature of the Deity needs increase and growth; but this
rather we hold, that by way of an economical appropriation (koct
oiKeicoGiv o'iKovo|xiKr|v), he made his own the properties of the flesh,
as having become flesh.

{Quod unus eat Christus.)

For the wise Evangelist, introducing the Word as become flesh, shows him
economically submitting himself to his own flesh and going through the
laws of his own nature. But it belongs to humanity to increase in stature
and in wisdom, and, I might add, in grace, intelligence keeping pace with
the measure of the body, and differing according to age. For it was not
impossible for the Word born of the Father to have raised the body united
to himself to its full height from the very swaddling-clothes. I would say
also, that in the babe a wonderful wisdom might easily have appeared. But
that would have approached the thaumaturgical, and would have been
incongruous to the laws of the economy. For the mystery was
accomplished noiselessly. Therefore he economically allowed the measures
of humanity to have power over himself.

533

A. B. BRUCE.

(The Humiliation of Christ. Appendix to Led. II.)

The accommodation to the laws of the economy, according to this passage,
consisted in this — in stature, real growth; in wisdom, apparent growth.
The wonderful wisdom was there from the first, but it was not allowed to
appear (eK(pf|voci), to avoid an aspect of monstrosity.

ST. CYRIL.

(Adversus Nestorium.)

Therefore there would have been shown to all an unwonted and strange
thing, if, being yet an infant, he had made a demonstration of his wisdom
worthy of God; but expanding it gradually and in proportion to the age of
the body, and (in this gradual manner) making it manifest to all, he might
be said to increase (in wisdom) very appropriately.

(Ad Reginas de recta fide, Orat. II., cap. xvi.)

"But the boy increased and waxed strong in spirit, being filled with
wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." And again: "Jesus increased
in stature and wisdom, and in favor with God and men." In affirming our
Lord Jesus Christ to be one, and assigning to him both divine and human
properties, we truly assert that it was congruous to the measures of the
kenosis, on the one hand, that he should receive bodily increase and grow
strong, the parts of the body gradually attaining their full development;
and, on the other hand, that he should seem to be filled with wisdom, in so
far as the manifestation of the wisdom dwelling within him proceeded, as
by addition, most congruously to the stature of the body; and this, as I
said, agreed with the economy of the Incarnation, and the measures of the
state of humiliation.

(Apol. contra Theod., ad Anath. iv.)

534

And if he is one and the same in virtue of the true unity of natures, and is
not one and another (two persons) disjunctively and partitively, to him
will belong both to know and to seem not to know. Therefore he knows on
the divine side as the Wisdom of the Father. But since he subjected himself
to the measure of humanity, he economically appropriates this also with
the rest, although, as I said a little ago, being ignorant of nothing, but
knowing all things with the Father.

IF anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is,
God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son
through nature, because "the Word was made flesh," and "hath a share in
flesh and blood as we do:" let him be anathema.

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

V.

If any one ventures to say that, even after the assumption of human
nature, there is only one Son of God, namely, he who is so in nature
(naturaliter filius=Logos), while he (Since the assumption of the flesh) is
certainly Emmanuel; let him be anathema.

PETAVIUS.

It is manifest that this anathematism is directed against the blasphemy of
Nestorius, by which he said that Christ was in this sense Emmanuel, that a
man was united and associated with God, just as God had been said to
have been with the Prophets and other holy men, and to have had his

535

abode in them; so that they were properly styled Geocpopoi, because, as
it were, they carried God about with them; but there was no one made of
the two. But he held that our Lord as man was bound and united with God
only by a communion of dignity.

Nestorius [in his Counter Anathematism] displays the hidden meaning of
his heresy, when he says, that the Son of God is not one after the
assumption of the humanity; for he who denied that he was one, no doubt
thought that he was two.

Theodoret in his criticism of this Anathematism remarks that many of the
Ancients, including St. Basil had used this very word, 6eo(popo<;, for the
Lord; but the objection has no real foundation, for the orthodoxy or
heterodoxy of such a word must be determined by the context in which it
is used, and also by the known opinions of him that uses it. Expressions
which are in a loose sense orthodox and quite excusable before a heresy
arises, may become afterwards the very distinctive marks and shibboleths
of error. Petavius has pointed out how far from orthodox many of the
earliest Christian writers were, at least verbally, and Bp. Bull defended
them by the same line of argument I have just used and which Petavius
himself employs in this very connection.

VL

If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of
Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the
same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, "The
Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.

536

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

VL

If anyone, after the Incarnation calls another than Christ the Word, and
ventures to say that the form of a servant is equally with the Word of
God, without beginning and uncreated, and not rather that it is made by
him as its natural Lord and Creator and God, and that he has promised to
raise it again in the words: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
build it up again"; let him be anathema.

HEFELE

This [statement of Nestorius's that any should call "another than Christ
the Word"] has no reference to Cyril; but is a hyper- Nestorianism, which
Nestorius here rejects. This [that "the form of a servant is without
beginning and uncreated"] was asserted by some Apollinarists; and
Nestorius accused St. Cyril of Apollinarianism.

PETAVIUS.

As Nestorius believed that in Christ there were two distinct entities (re
ipsa duos) that is to say two persons joined together; it was natural that
he should hold that the Word was the God and Lord of the other, that is of
the man. Cyril contradicts this, and since he taught that there was, not
two, but one of two natures, that is one person or suppositum, therefore
he denied that the Word was the God or Lord of the man; since no one
should be called the Lord of himself.

537

Theodoret in his answer shuffles as usual, and points out that Christ is
styled a servant by the Prophet Isaiah, because of the form of a servant
which he had received. But to this Cyril answers; that although Christ,
inasmuch as he was man, is called the servant of the Father, as of a person
distinct from himself; yet he denies that the same person can be his own
Lord or servant, lest a separation of the person be introduced.

vn.

If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of
God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as
something not properly his: let him be anathema.

NOTES
NESTORIUS.

vn.

If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the
Only-begotten, who was born from the bosom of the Father, before the
morning star was (Psalm 109:3), and does not rather confess that he has
obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection
with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father; and besides, if
any one calls another than the Emmanuel Christ let him be anathema.

ST. CYRIL.

(Declaratio Septima.)

When the blessed Gabriel announced to the holy Virgin the generation of
the only-begotten Son of God according to the flesh, he said, "Thou shalt

538

bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people
from their sins." But he was named also Christ, because that according to
his human nature he was anointed with us, according to the words of the
Psalmist: "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore
God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows." For although he was the giver of the Holy Spirit, neither did he
give it by measure to them that were worthy (for he was full of the Holy
Ghost, and of his fullness have we all received, as it is written),
nevertheless as he is man he was called anointed economically, the Holy
Spirit resting upon him spiritually (voryccoc;) and not after the manner of
men, in order that he might abide in us, although he had been driven forth
from us in the beginning by Adam's fall. He therefore the only begotten
Word of God made flesh was called Christ. And since he possessed as his
own the power proper to God, he wrought his wonders. Whosoever
therefore shall say that the glory of the Only-begotten was added to the
power of Christ, as though the Only-begotten was different from Christ,
they are thinking of two sons; the one truly working and the other
impelled (by the strength of another, Lat.) as a man like to us; and all such
fall under the penalty of this anathematism.

Vffl.

If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (6cvoc^r|(p9evToc) ought to
be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with
him, and recognized together with him as God, and yet as two different
things, the one with the other (for this "Together with" is added [i. e., by
the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one
adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is
written] "The Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.

539

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

Vffl.

If any one says that the form of a servant should, for its own sake, that is,
in reference to its own nature, be reverenced, and that it is the ruler of all
things, and not rather, that [merely] on account of its connection with the
holy and in itself universally-ruling nature of the Only -begotten, it is to be
reverenced; let him be anathema.

HEr EEE

On this point [made by Nestorius, that "the form of a servant is the ruler
of all things"] Marius Mercator has already remarked with justice, that no
Catholic had ever asserted anything of the kind.

Petavius notes that the version of Dionysius Exiguus is defective.

PETAVIUS.

Nestorius captiously and maliciously interpreted this as if the "form of a
servant" according to its very nature (ratio) was to be adored, that is
should receive divine worship. But this is nefarious and far removed from
the mind of Cyril. Since to such an extent only the human nature of Christ
is one suppositum with the divine, that he declares that each is the object
of one and an undivided adoration; lest if a double and dissimilar cultus be
attributed to each one, the divine person should be divided into two
adorable Sons and Christs, as we have heard Cyril often complaining.

540
IX.

If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the
Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from
him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles
before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through
which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

IX.

If anyone says that the form of a servant is of like nature with the Holy
Ghost, and not rather that it owes its union with the Word which has
existed since the conception, to his mediation, by which it works
miraculous healings among men, and possesses the power of expelling
demons; let him be anathema.

PETAVIUS.

The scope of this anathematism is to shew that the Word of God, when he
assumed flesh remaining what he was, and lacking nothing which the
Father possessed except only paternity, had as his own the Holy Spirit
which is from him and substantially abides in him. From this it follows
that through him, as through a power and strength which was his own, and
not one alien or adventitious, he wrought his wonders and cast forth
devils, but he did not receive that Holy Spirit and his power as formerly
the Prophets had done, or as afterwards his disciples did, as a kind of gift
(beneficii loco).

541

The Orientals objected that St. Cyril here contradicts himself, for here he
says that Christ did not work his wonders by the Holy Ghost and in
another place he frankly confesses that he did so work them. But the
whole point is what is intended by working through the Holy Ghost. For
the Apostles worked miracles through the Holy Ghost but as by a power
external to themselves, but not so Christ. When Christ worked wonders
through the Holy Ghost, he was working through a power which was his
own, viz.: the Third Person of the Holy Trinity; from whom he never was
and never could be separated, ever abiding with him and the Eternal Father
in the Divine Unity.

The Westerns have always pointed to this anathematism as shewing that
St. Cyril recognized the eternal relation of the Holy Spirit as being from
the Son.

542

EXCURSUS ON HOW OUR LORD WORKED MIRACLES

In view of the fact that many are now presenting as if something newly

discovered, and as the latest results of biblical study, the interpretations of

the early heretics with regard to our Lord's powers and to his relation to

the Holy Ghost, I have here set down in full Theodoret's

Counter- statement to the faith accepted by tile Ecumenical Councils of the

Church.

THEODORET.

(Counter Statement to Anath. IX. of Cyril.)

Here he has plainly had the hardihood to anathematize not only those who
at the present time hold pious opinions, but also those who were in former
days heralds of truth; aye even the writers of the divine Gospels, the band
of the holy Apostles, and, in addition to these, Gabriel the archangel. For
he indeed it was who first, even before the conception, announced the
birth of the Christ according to the flesh; saying in reply to Mary when
she asked, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? "The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;
therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God." And to Joseph he said, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary
thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." And the
Evangelist says, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph...
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." And the Lord himself when
he had come into the synagogue of the Jews and had taken the prophet
Isaiah, after reading the passage in which he says, "The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me because he hath anointed me" and so on, added, "This day is
this scripture fulfilled in your ears." And the blessed Peter in his sermon
to the Jews said, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost."
And Isaiah many ages before had predicted "There shall come forth a rod
out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots; and the
Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and

543

of the fear of the Lord"; and again, "Behold my servant whom I uphold,
my beloved in whom my soul delighteth. I will put my Spirit upon him: he
shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." This testimony the Evangelist
too has inserted in his own writings. And the Lord himself in the Gospels
says to the Jews, "If I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the
kingdom of God is come upon you." And John says, "He that sent me to
baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth
with the Holy Ghost." So this exact examiner of the divine decrees has not
only anathematized prophets, apostles, and even the archangel Gabriel,
but has suffered his blasphemy to reach even the Savior of the world
himself. For we have shewn that the Lord himself after reading the passage
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he had anointed me," said to
the Jews, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." And to those
who said that he was casting out devils by Beelzebub he replied that he
was casting them out by the Spirit of God. But we maintain that it was
not God the Word, of one substance and co-eternal with the Father, that
was formed by the Holy Ghost and anointed, but the human nature which
was assumed by him at the end of days. We shall confess that the Spirit of
the Son was his own if he spoke of it as of the same nature and proceeding
from the Father, and shall accept the expression as consistent with true
piety. But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its
origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and
impious. For we believe the Lord when he says, "The spirit which
proceedeth from the Father"; and likewise the very divine Paul saying,
"We have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of
God."

In the foregoing will be found the very same arguments used and the same
texts cited against the Catholic faith as are urged and cited by the Rev. A.
J. Mason. The Conditions of Our Lord' s Life on Earth, and by several
other recent writers.

544

X.

Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was
made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born
of a woman, yet different from him (iSikco<; ocvGpccmov), who is become
our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered
himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being
without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

NOTES

NESTORIUS.

X.

If any one maintains that the Word, who is from the beginning, has become
the high priest and apostle of our confession, and has offered himself for
us, and does not rather say that it is the work of Emmanuel to be an
apostle; and if any one in such a manner divides the sacrifice between him
who united [the Word] and him who was united [the manhood] referring it
to a common sonship, that is, not giving to God that which is God's, and
to man that which is man's; let him be anathema.

ST. CYRIL.

(Declaratio decima.)

But I do not know how those who think otherwise contend that the very
Word of God made man, was not the apostle and high-priest of our
profession, but a man different from him; who was born of the holy
Virgin, was called our apostle and high-priest, and came to this gradually;
and that not only for us did he offer himself a sacrifice to God and the

545

Father, but also for himself. A statement which is wholly contrary to the
right and undefiled faith, for he did no sin, but was superior to fault and
altogether free from sin, and needed no sacrifice for himself. Since those
who think differently were again unreasonably thinking of two sons, this
anathematism became necessary that their impiety might appear.

XL

Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord giveth life and that
it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall
pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the
Word] only according to honor, and who has served as a dwelling for the
divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life
because it is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema.

NOTES.

NESTORIUS.

XL

If any one maintains that the flesh which is united with God the Word is
by the power of its own nature life-giving, whereas the Lord himself says,
"It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" (St. John
6:61), let him be anathema. [He adds, "God is a Spirit" (St. John 4:24). If,
then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a carnal manner, in his
substance, become flesh, and persists in this with reference to the Lord
Christ; who himself after his resurrection said to his disciples, "Handle me
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having" (St.
Luke 24:39); let him be anathema.]

546

HEFELE

The part enclosed in brackets is certainly a spurious addition and is
wanting in many manuscripts. Cf. Marius Mercator [ed. Migne], p. 919.

ST. CYRIL.

(Declaratio undecima.)

We perform in the churches the holy, lifegiving, and unbloody sacrifice;
the body, as also the precious blood, which is exhibited we believe not to
be that of a common man and of any one like unto us, but receiving it
rather as his own body and as the blood of the Word which gives all things
life. For common flesh cannot give life. And this our Savior himself
testified when he said: "The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that
giveth life." For since the flesh became the very own of the Word,
therefore we understand that it is lifegiving, as the Savior himself said: "As
the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth
me shall live by me." Since therefore Nestorius and those who think with
him rashly dissolve the power of this mystery; therefore it was convenient
that this anathematism should be put forth.

xn.

Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the
flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh
he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as
he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.

547

NOTES.

NESTORIUS.

xn.

If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, ascribes these also to
the Word of God as to the flesh in which he appeared, and thus does not
distinguish the dignity of the natures; let him be anathema.

ST. CYRIL.

(Adv. Orientates, ad XII. Quoting Athanasius.)

For if the body is of another, to him also must the sufferings be ascribed.
But if the flesh is the Word's (for "The Word was made flesh")it is
necessary that the sufferings of the flesh be called his also whose is the
flesh. But whose are the sufferings, such especially as condemnation,
flagellation, thirst, the cross, death, and other such like infirmities of the
body, his also is the merit and the grace. Therefore rightly and properly to
none other are these sufferings attributed than to the Lord, as also the
grace is from him; and we shall not be guilty of idolatry, but be the true
worshippers of God, for we invoke him who is no creature nor any
common man, but the natural and true Son of God, made man, and yet the
same Lord and God and Savior.

As I think, these quotations will suffice to the learned for the proof of the
propositions advanced, the Divine Law plainly saying that "In the mouth
of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." But if after
this any one would still seem to be contentious, we would say to him:
"Go thine own way. We however shall follow the divine Scriptures and
the faith of the Holy Fathers."

548

The student should read at full length all Cyril's defense of his
anathematisms, also his answers to the criticisms of Theodoret, and to
those of the Orientals, all of which will be found in his works, and in
Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., 811 et seqq.

549

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

(Continued). (L. and C, Cone., Tom. III., Col. 503.)

[No action is recorded in the Acts as having been taken. A verbal report
was made by certain who had seen Nestorius during the past three days,
that they were hopeless of any repentance on his part. On the motion of
Flavian, bishop of Philippi, a number of passages from the Fathers were
read; and after that some selections from the writings of Nestorius. A letter
from Capreolus, Archbishop of Carthage, was next read, excusing his
absence; after the reading of the letter, which makes no direct reference to
Nestorius whatever, but prays the Synod to see to it that no novelties be
tolerated, the Acts proceed. (Col. 534).]

Cyril, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, said: As this letter of the
most reverend and pious Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, which has been
read, contains a most lucid expression of opinion, let it be inserted in the
Acts. For it wishes that the ancient dogmas of the faith should be
confirmed, and that novelties, absurdly conceived and impiously brought
forth, should be reprobated and proscribed.

All the bishops at the same time cried out: These are the sentiments
((pcovoc'i) of all of us, these are the things we all say-the accomplishment of
this is the desire of us all.

[Immediately follows the sentence of deposition and the subscriptions. It
seems almost certain that something has dropped out here, most probably
the whole discussion of Cyril's XII. Anathematisms .]

550

DECREE OF THE COUNCIL AGAINST NESTORIUS

(Found in all the Concilia in Greek with Latin Versions.)

As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our
citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him,
we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that
he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as
well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been
testified to. Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter
(6cvocykoc'ico<; KOCTe7tei%9evTe<; ocrco xe raw kocvovcov, koci ek xf|c;
knioToXr\q, k.t.X) of our most holy father and fellow- servant Coelestine,
the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful
sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has
blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from
the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.

NOTES.

The words for which I have given the original Greek, are not mentioned by
Canon Bright in his Article on St. Cyril in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of
Christian Biography; nor by Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of
Ephesus in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
They do not appear in Canon Robertsons History of the Church. And
strangest of all, Dean Milman cites the Sentence in English in the text and
in Greek in a note but in each case omits all mention of the letter of the
Pope, marking however in the Greek that there is an omission. (Lat. Chr.,
Bk. II Chap. III.) I also note that the translation in the English edition of
Hefele's ///story of the Councils (Vol. III., p. 51) is misleading and
inaccurate, "Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter etc."
The participle by itself might mean nothing more than "urged" (vide
Liddell and Scott on this verb and also eiteiyco) but the adverb which

551

precedes it, 6cvayKaico<;, certainly is sufficient to necessitate the coacti of
the old Latin version which I have followed, translating "compelled
thereto." It will also be noticed that while the prepositions used with
regard to the "canons" and the "letter" are different, yet that their
grammatical relation to the verb is identical is shewn by the te — koci
which proves the translation cited above to be utterly incorrect

Hefele for the "canons" refers to canon number 74:of the Apostolic
Canons; which orders an absent bishop to be summoned thrice before
sentence be given against him.

552

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. Ill, col. 609.)

The most pious and God-beloved bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, as also
the most beloved-of-God Philip, a presbyter and legate of the Apostolic
See, then entered and took their seats.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We bless the
holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to
attend your holy Synod. For a long time ago (7td^oci)our most holy and
blessed pope Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters
to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave
judgment concerning the present cause and affair (©pioev) which letters
have been shown to your holy assembly. And now again for the
corroboration of the Catholic (Koc9oXiKf|<;) faith, he has sent through us
letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid (KeXovaaxe) to be read
with becoming reverence (7tpe7t6vTco<;) and to be entered on the
ecclesiastical minutes.

Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: May it please
your blessedness to give order that the letters 1 of the holy and
ever-to-be-mentioned- with-veneration Pope Coelestine, bishop of the
Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, be read, from which your
reverence will be able to see what care he has for all the Churches.

Projectus, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said, May it please,
etc. [The same as Arcadius had said verbatim!]

And afterwards the most holy and beloved-of-God Cyril, bishop of the
Church of Alexandria, spoke as is next in order contained; Siricius, notary
of the holy Catholic (KocGoXiKfjc;) Church of Rome read it.

553

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: Let the letter received from the most
holy and altogether most blessed Coelestine, bishop of the Apostolic See
of Rome be read to the holy Synod with fitting honor.

Siricius, notary of the holy Catholic (Koc9oXiKf|c;) Church of the city of
Rome read it.

And after it was read in Latin, Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem said: Let
the writings of the most holy and blessed bishop of great Rome which
have just been Toad, be entered on the minutes.

And all the most reverend bishops prayed that the letter might be
translated and read.

Philip, the presbyter of the Apostolic See and Legate said: The custom has
been sufficiently complied with, that the writings of the Apostolic See
should first be read in Latin. But now since your holiness has demanded
that they be read in Greek also, it is necessary that your holiness' s desire
should be satisfied; We have taken care that this be done, and that the
Latin be turned into Greek. Give order therefore that it be received and
read in your holy hearing.

Arcadius and Projectus, bishops and legates said, As your blessedness
ordered that the writings which we brought should be brought to the
knowledge of all, for of our holy brethren bishops there are not a few who
do not understand Latin, therefore the letter has been translated into Greek
and if you so command let it be read.

Flavian, the bishop of Philippi said: Let the translation of the letter of the
most holy and beloved of God, bishop of the Roman Church be received
and read.

Peter, the presbyter of Alexandria and primicerius of the notaries read as
follows:

554

THE LETTER OF POPE COELESTINE TO THE
SYNOD OF EPHESUS

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 613. Also Migne, Pat. Lat.,
Tom. L, col. 505.)

Coelestine the bishop to the holy Synod assembled at Ephesus, brethren
beloved and most longed for, greeting in the Lord.

A Synod of priests gives witness to the presence of the Holy Spirit. For
true is that which we read, since the Truth cannot lie, to wit, the promise
of the Gospel; "Where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them." And since tiffs is so, if the Holy Spirit is
not absent from so small a number how much more may we believe he is
present when so great a multitude of holy ones are assembled together!
Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration which is its due;
for in every such council the reverence which should be paid to that most
famous council of the Apostles of which we read is to be had regard to.
Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this,
but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who
taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their
teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher;
he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher.
This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in
common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this
solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in
their stead for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations." You, dear brethren,
should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that
all of us should perform that office, which he thus entrusted in common to
all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then,
undertake their labors, since we are the successors in their honor. And we
shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught,
beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are
forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping what is committed to our
trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.

555

They sowed the seed of the faith. This shall be our care that the coming of
our great father of the family, to whom alone assuredly this fullness of the
Apostles is assigned, may find fruit uncorrupt and many fold. For the vase
of election tells us that it is not sufficient to plant and to water unless God
gives the increase. We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith
which has come down to us today, through the Apostolic Succession. For
we are expected to walk according to the Apostle. For now not our
appearance (species) but our faith is called in question. Spiritual weapons
are those we must take, because the war is one of minds, and the weapons
are words; so shall we be strong in the faith of our King. Now the Blessed
Apostle Paul admonishes that all should remain in that place in which he
bid Timothy remain. The same place therefore, the same cause, lays upon
us the same duty. Let us now also do and study that which he then
commanded him to do. And let no one think otherwise, and let no one pay
heed to over strange fables, as he himself ordered. Let us be unanimous
thinking the same thing, for this is expedient: let us do nothing out of
contention, nothing out of vain glory: let us be in all things of one mind, of
one heart, when the faith which is one, is attacked. Let the whole body
grieve and mourn in common with us. He who is to judge the world is
called into judgment; he who is to criticize all, is himself made the object of
criticism, he who redeemed us is made to suffer calumny. Dear Brethren,
gird ye with the armor of God. Ye know what helmet must protect our
head, what breast-plate our breast. For this is not the first time the
ecclesiastical camps have received you as their rulers. Let no one doubt
that by the favor of the Lord who maketh twain to be one, there will be
peace, and that arms will be laid aside since the very cause defends itself.

Let us look once again at these words of our Doctor, which he uses with
express reference to bishops, saying, "Take heed to yourselves and to the
whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishop, that ye
rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood."

We read that they who heard this at Ephesus, the same place at which
your holiness is come together, were called thence. To them therefore to
whom this preaching of the faith was known, to them also let your defense
of the same faith also be known. Let us shew them the constancy of our
mind with that reverence which is due to matters of great importance;
which things peace has guarded for a long time with pious understanding.

556

Let there be announced by you what things have been preserved intact
from the Apostles; for the words of tyrannical opposition are never
admitted against the King of Kings, nor can the business of truth be
oppressed by falsehood.

I exhort you, most blessed brethren, that love alone be regarded in which
we ought to remain, according to the voice of John the Apostle whose
reliques we venerate in this city. Let common prayer be offered to the
Lord. For we can form some idea of what will be the power of the divine
presence at the united intercession of such a multitude of priests, by
considering how the very place was moved where, as we read, the Twelve
made together their supplication. And what was the purport of that
prayer of the Apostles? It was that they might receive grace to speak the
word of God with confidence, and to act through its power, both of which
they received by the favor of Christ our God. And now what else is to be
asked for by your holy council, except that ye may speak the Word of the
Lord with confidence? What else than that he would give you grace to
preserve that which he has given you to preach? that being filled with the
Holy Ghost, as it is written, ye may set forth that one truth which the
Spirit himself has taught you, although with divers voices.

Animated, in brief, by all these considerations (for, as the Apostle says: "I
speak to them that know the law, and I speak wisdom among them that
are perfect"), stand fast by the Catholic faith, and defend the peace of the
Churches, for so it is said, both to those past, present, and future, asking
and preserving "those things which belong to the peace of Jerusalem."

Out of our solicitude, we have sent our holy brethren and fellow priests,
who are at one with us and are most approved men, Arcedius, and
Projectus, the bishops, and our presbyter, Philip, that they may be
present at what is done and may carry out what things have been already
decreed be us (quoe a nobis anted statuta sunt, exequa tur).

To the performing of which we have no doubt that your holiness will
assent when it is seen that what has been decreed is for the security of the
whole church. Given the viij of the Ides of May, in the consulate of
Bassus and Antiochus.

557

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II.

(Continued.) (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 617.)

And all the most reverend bishops at the same time cried out. This is a just
judgment. To Coelestine, a new Paul To Cyril a new Paul! To Coelestine
the guardian of the faith! To Coelestine of one mind with the synod! To
Coelestine the whole Synod offers its thanks! One Coelestine! One Cyril!
One faith of the Synod! One faith of the world!

Projectus, the most reverend bishop and legate, said: Let your holiness
consider the form Ttmovof the writings of the holy and venerable pope
Coelestine, the bishop, who has exhorted your holiness (not as if teaching
the ignorant, but as reminding them that know) that those things which he
had long ago defined, and now thought it right to remind you of, ye might
give command to be carried out to the uttermost, according to the canon of
the common faith, and according to the use of the Catholic Church.

Firmus, the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: The Apostolic and
holy see of the most holy bishop Coelestine, hath previously given a
decision and type (rurcov) in this matter, through the writings which were
sent to the most God beloved bishops, to wit to Cyril of Alexandria, and
to Juvenal of Jerusalem, and to Rufus of Thessalonica, and to the holy
churches, both of Constantinople and of Antioch. This we have also
followed and (since the limit set for Nestorius's emendation was long gone
by, and much time has passed since our arrival at the city of Ephesus in
accordance with the decree of the most pious emperor, and thereupon
having delayed no little time so that the day fixed by the emperor was
past; and since Nestorius although cited had not appeared) we carried into
effect the type (tutcov) having pronounced against him a canonical and
apostolical judgment.

558

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate, said: Although our sailing
was slow, and contrary winds hindered us especially, so that we did not
know whether we should arrive at the destined place, as we had hoped,
nevertheless by God's good providence... Wherefore we desire to ask your
blessedness, that you command that we be taught what has been already
decreed by your holiness.

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks
to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and
blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your]
holy voices, ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy
acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the
whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And
since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much
vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us
what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that
according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy
assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Theodotus, the bishop of Ancyra said: The God of the whole world has
made manifest the justice of the judgment pronounced by the holy Synod
by the writings of the most religious bishop Coelestine, and by the coming
of your holiness. For ye have made manifest the zeal of the most holy and
reverend bishop Coelestine, and his care for the pious faith. And since
very reasonably your reverence is desirous of learning what has been done
from the minutes of the acts concerning the deposition of Nestorius your
reverence will be fully convinced of the justice of the sentence, and of the
zeal of the holy Synod, and the symphony of the faith which the most
pious and holy bishop Coelestine has proclaimed with a great voice, of
course after your full conviction, the rest shall be added to the present
action.

[In the Acts follow two short letters from Coelestine, one to the Emperor
and the other to Cyril, but nothing is said about them, or how they got
there, and thus abruptly ends the account of this session.]

559

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION III.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. Ill, col. 621.)

Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem said to Arcadius and Projectus the most
reverend bishops, and to Philip the most reverend presbyter; Yesterday
while this holy and great synod was in session, when your holiness was
present, you demanded after the reading of the letter of the most holy and
blessed bishop of Great Rome, Coelestine, that the minutes made in the
Acts with regard to the deposition of Nestorius the heretic should be read.
And thereupon the Synod ordered this to be done. Your holiness will be
good enough to inform us whether you have read them and understand
their power.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: From reading the
Acts we have found what things have been done in your holy synod with
regard to Nestorius. We have found from the minutes that all things have
been decided in accordance with the canons and with ecclesiastical
discipline. And now also we seek from your honor, although it may be
useless, that what things have been read in your synod, the same should
now again be read to us also; so that we may follow the formula (xvnco) of
the most holy pope Coelestine (who committed this same care to us), and
of your holiness also, and may be able to confirm (PePoucoaoci) the
judgment.

[Arcadius having seconded Philip 's motion, Memnon directed the acts to
be read which was done by the primicerius of the notaries.]

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no
doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most
blessed Peter, prince (e^ocp%o<;) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the

560

faith, and foundation (9ejxeXio<;) of the Catholic Church, received the
keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer
of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and
binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in
his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to
due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply
his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian
Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually
watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now
keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most
pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the
present time, etc.

[There is no further reference in the speech to the papal prerogatives.]

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See said:
Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow.... And since of his own accord he
hath made himself an alien and an exile from us, we following the sanctions
handed down from the beginning by the holy Apostles, and by the
Catholic Church (for they taught what they had received from our Lord
Jesus Christ), also following the types (vbnoiq) of Coelestine, most holy
pope of the Apostolic See, who has condescended to send us as his
executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy
Synod [we give this as our conclusion]: Let Nestorius know that he is
deprived of all episcopal dignity, and is an alien from the whole Church
and from the communion of all its priests.

Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Most clearly from
the reading, etc,... Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy
Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor (eKpiPaaxr|<;)
of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of
the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he
was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honor, and
moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been
made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also
by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand
manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the

561

place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the
God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those
things which were defined by the most holy Coelestine, the God-beloved
bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote east against Nestorius the
heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be
agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already
prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be
shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom,
their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Roman Church, said:
According to the acts of this holy Synod, we necessarily confirm with our
subscriptions their doctrines.

The Holy Synod said: Since Arcadius and Projectus the most reverend and
most religious bishops and legates and Philip, the presbyter and legate of
the Apostolic See, have said that they are of the same mind with us, it
only remains, that they redeem their promises and confirm the acts with
their signatures, and then let the minutes of the acts be shewn to them.

[The three then signed.]

562

THE CANONS OF THE TWO HUNDRED HOLY
AND BLESSEDFATHERS WHO MET AT EPHESUS.

(Critical Annotations on the text will be found in Dr. Routh's Scriptorum
Eccl. Opusc. Tom. II. [Ed. III.] p. 85.)

The holy and ecumenical Synod, gathered together in Ephesus by the
decree of our most religious Emperors, to the bishops, presbyters,
deacons, and all the people in every province and city:

When we had assembled, according to the religious decree [of the
Emperors], in the Metropolis of Ephesus, certain persons, a little more
than thirty in number, withdrew from amongst us, having for the leader of
their schism John, Bishop of Antioch. Their names are as follows: first,
the said John of Antioch in Syria, John of Damascus, Alexander of
Apamea, Alexander of Hierapolis, Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of
Heraclea, Helladius of Tarsus, Maximin of Anazarbus, Theodore of
Marcianopolis, Peter of Trajanopolis, Paul of Emissa, Polychronius of
Heracleopolis, Euthyrius of Tyana, Meletius of Neocaesarea, Theodoret
of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcedon, Macarius of Laodicea Magna, Zosys of
Esbus, Sallust of Corycus in Cilicia, Hesychius of Castabala in Cilicia,
Valentine of Mutloblaca, Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip of Theodosia,
and Daniel, and Dexianus, and Julian, and Cyril, and Olympius, and
Diegenes, Polius, Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajan of Augusta, Aurelius
of Irenepolis, Mysaeus of Aradus, Helladius of Ptolemais. These men,
having no privilege of ecclesiastical communion on the ground of a priestly
authority, by which they could injure or benefit any persons; since some
of them had already been deposed; and since from their refusing to join in
our decree against Nestorius, it was manifestly evident to all men that they
were all promoting the opinions of Nestorius and Celestius; the Holy
Synod, by one common decree, deposed them from all ecclesiastical
communion, and deprived them of all their priestly power by which they
might injure or profit any persons.

563

CANON I

Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy Synod
and remained in their own district or city, for any reason, ecclesiastical or
personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were thereby
decreed; we, therefore, notify your holiness and charity that if any
Metropolitan of a Province, forsaking the holy and Ecumenical Synod, has
joined the assembly of the apostates, or shall join the same hereafter; or, if
he has adopted, or shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines of Celestius, he has
no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the
province, since he is already cast forth from all ecclesiastical communion
and made incapable of exercising his ministry; but he shall himself be
subject in all things to those very bishops of the province and to the
neighboring orthodox metropolitans, and shall be degraded from his
episcopal rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.

If a metropolitan, having deserted his synod, adheres or shall adhere to
Celestine, let him be cast out.

NICHOLAS HYDRUNTINUS.

Scholion concerning Celestine and Celestius. Whose finds at the end of the
fourth canon of the Holy Synod of Ephesus [and the same is true of this
first canon. Ed.] "Clerics who shall have consented to Celestine or
Nestorius, should be deposed," let him not read "Celestine" with an "n,"
but "Celestius" without the "n." For Celestine was the holy and orthodox
Pope of Rome, Celestius was the heretic.

It is perfectly certain that this was no accident on the part of Aristenus,
for in his commentary on Canon V., he expressly says that "Celestine was

564

Bishop of Rome" and goes on to affirm that, "The Holy Synod decreed
that they who embraced the opinions of Nestorius and Celestine," etc.
What perhaps is equally astonishing is that Nicholas Hydruntinus, while
correcting the name, still is of opinion that Celestius was a pope of Rome
and begins his scholion with the title. Ttepi KeXecrcivoi) koci
KeXeax'iov, Han&\ Pcout|<;. Beveridge well points out that this confusion
is all the more remarkable as in the Kalendar of the Saints observed at that
very time by the Greeks, on the eighth day of April was kept the memory
of "Celestine, Pope of Rome, as a Saint and Champion against the
Nestorian heretics." (Bev., Annot, in C. v.).

Simeon the Logothete adds to this epitome the words, koci to e^f|<;
6c8ioiKr|Toc; which are necessary to make the sense complete.

565

EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM OF JOHN OF ANTIOCH

The assembly referred to in this canon is one held by John of Antioch who
had delayed his coming so as to hamper the meeting of the synod. John
was a friend of Nestorius and made many fruitless attempts to induce him
to accept the orthodox faith. It will be noticed that the conciliabulum was
absolutely silent with respect to Nestorius and his doctrine and contented
itself with attacking St. Cyril and the orthodox Memnon, the bishop of
Ephesus. St. Cyril and his friends did indeed accuse the Antiochenes of
being adherents of Nestorius, and in a negative way they certainly were so,
and were in open opposition to the defenders of the orthodox faith; but, as
Tillemont has well pointed out, they did not theologically agree with the
heresy of Nestorius, gladly accepted the orthodox watchword "Mother of
God," and subsequently agreed to his deposition.

The first session of the Council of Ephesus had already taken place on
June 22, and it was only on June 26th or 27th, that John of Antioch
arrived at last at Ephesus.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 55 et scqq.)

The Synod immediately sent a deputation to meet him, consisting of
several bishops and clerics, to show him proper respect, and at the same
time to make him acquainted with the deposition of Nestorius, so that he
might not be drawn into any intercourse with him. The soldiers who
surrounded Archbishop John prevented the deputation from speaking to
him in the street; consequently they accompanied him to his abode, but
were compelled to wait here for several hours, exposed to the insults of
the soldiers, and at last, when they had discharged their commission, were
driven home, ill-treated and beaten. Count Irenaeus, the friend of
Nestorius, had suggested this treatment, and approved of it. The envoys
immediately informed the Synod of what had happened, and showed the
wounds which they had received, which called forth great indignation
against John of Antioch. According to the representation of Memnon,
excommunication was for this reason pronounced against him; but we shall
see further on that this did not take place until afterwards, and it is clear

566

that Memnon, in his brief narrative, has passed over an intermediate
portion — the threefold invitation of John. In the meantime, Candidian
had gone still further in his opposition to the members of the synod,
causing them to be annoyed and insulted by his soldiers, and even cutting
off their supply of food, while he provided Nestorius with a regular
body-guard of armed peasants. John of Antioch, immediately after his
arrival, while still dusty from the journey, and at the time when he was
allowing the envoys of the synod to wait, held at his town residence a
Conciliabulum with his adherents, at which, first of all Count Candidian
related how Cyril and his friends, in spite of all warnings, and in
opposition to the imperial decrees, had held a session five days before, had
contested his (the count's) right to be present, had dismissed the bishops
sent by Nestorius, and had paid no attention to the letters of others.
Before he proceeded further, John of Antioch requested that the
Emperor's edict of convocation should be read, whereupon Candidian
went on with his account of what had taken place, and in answer to a fresh
question of John's declared that Nestorius had been condemned unheard.
John found this quite in keeping with the disposition of the synod since,
instead of receiving him and his companions in a friendly manner, they had
rushed upon them tumultuously (it was thus that he described what had
happened). But the holy Synod, which was now assembled, would decide
what was proper with respect to them. And this synod, of which John
speaks in such grandiloquent terms, numbered only forty-three members,
including himself, while on the other side there were more than two
hundred.

John then proposed the question [as to] what was to be decided respecting
Cyril and his adherents; and several who were not particularly pronounced
Nestorian bishops came forward to relate how Cyril and Memnon of
Ephesus had, from the beginning, maltreated the Nestorians, had allowed
them no church, and even on the festival of Pentecost had permitted them
to hold no service. Besides Memnon had sent his clerics into the
residences of the bishops, and had ordered them with threats to take part
in his council. And in this way he and Cyril had confused everything, so
that their own heresies might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian,
the Apollinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in the last
letter of Cyril [to Nestorius, along with the anathematisms]. It was

567

therefore John's duty to see to it that the heads of these heresies (Cyril
and Memnon) should be suitably punished for such grave offenses, and
that the bishops who had been misguided by them should be subjected to
ecclesiastical penalties.

To these impudent and false accusations John replied with hypocritical
meekness "that he had certainly wished that he should not be compelled to
exclude from the Church any one who had been received into the sacred
priesthood, but diseased members must certainly be cut off in order to
save the whole body; and for this reason Cyril and Memnon deserved to
be deposed, because they had given occasion to disorders, and had acted in
opposition to the commands of the Emperors, and besides, were in the
chapters mentioned [the anathematisms] guilty of heresy. All who had
been misled by them were to be excommunicated until they confessed their
error, anathematized the heretical propositions of Cyril, adhered strictly to
the creed of Nice, without any foreign addition, and joined the synod of
John."

The assembly approved of this proposal, and John then announced the
sentence in the following manner: —

"The holy Synod, assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and the
command of the pious Emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished
to be able to hold a Synod in peace, but because you held a separate
assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate disposition, although we
were already in the neighborhood, and have filled both the city and the
holy Synod with confusion, in order to prevent tire examination of your
Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies, and have not waited for the
arrival of the holy bishops of all regions, and have also disregarded the
warnings and admonitions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyril of
Alexandria, and you Memnon of this place, know that you are deposed
and dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originators of the whole
disorder, etc. You others, who gave your consent, are excommunicated,
until you acknowledge your fault and reform, accept anew the Nicene faith
[as if they had surrendered it!] without foreign addition, anathematize the
heretical propositions of Cyril, and in all things comply with the command
of the Emperors, who require a peaceful and more accurate consideration
of the dogma."

568

This decree was subscribed by all the forty-three members of the
Conciliabulum:

The Conciliabulum then, in very one-sided letters informed the Emperor,
the imperial ladies (the wife and sister of the Emperor Theodosius II.), the
clergy, the senate, and the people of Constantinople, of all that had taken
place, and a little later once more required the members of the genuine
Synod, in writing, no longer to delay the time for repentance and
conversion, and to separate themselves from Cyril and Memnon, etc.,
otherwise they would very soon be forced to lament their own folly.

On Saturday evening the Conciliabulum asked Count Candidian to take
care that neither Cyril nor Memnon, nor any one of their
(excommunicated) adherents should hold divine service on Sunday.
Candidian now wished that no member of either synodal party should
officiate, but only the ordinary clergy of the city; but Memnon declared
that he would in no way submit to John and his synod, and Cyril and his
adherents held divine service. All the efforts of John to appoint by force
another bishop of Ephesus in the place of Memnon were frustrated by the
opposition of the orthodox inhabitants.

569

CANON II

If any provincial bishops were not present at the holy Synod and have
joined or attempted to join the apostasy; or if, after subscribing the
deposition of Nestorius, they went back into the assembly of apostates;
these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod, are to be deposed
from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

If any bishop assents to or favors Nestorius, let him be discharged.

It was not unnatural that when it was seen that the Imperial authority was
in favor of the Antiochene party that some of the clergy should have been
weak enough to vacillate in their course, the more so as the Conciliabulum
was not either avowedly, nor really, a Nestorian assembly, but one made
up of those not sympathizing with Nestorius' s heresy, yet friendly to the
heretic himself, and disapproving of what they looked upon as the
uncalled-for harshness and precipitancy of Cyril's course.

570

CANON III

If any of the city or country clergy have been inhibited by Nestorius or
his followers from the exercise of the priesthood, on account of their
orthodoxy, we have declared it just that these should be restored to their
proper rank. And in general we forbid all the clergy who adhere to the
Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to the bishops who
have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

To whom Nestorius forbids the priesthood, he is most worthy; but whom
he approves is profane.

It would seem from this canon that any bishop who had become a member
of the Conciliabulum of John, was considered as eo ipso having lost all
jurisdiction. Also it would seem that the clergy were to disregard the
inhibition of Nestorian prelates or at least these inhibitions were by some
one to be removed. This principle, if generally applied, would seem to be
somewhat revolutionary.

LIGHTFOOT.

(Apos. Fath. Ign. Ad Rom. L, Vol. II., Sec. I., p. 191.)

The words %(3po<; ("place"), %copoc ("country"), and %copiov ("district"),
may be distinguished as implying locality, extension, and limitation,
respectively. The last word commonly denotes either "an estate, a farm,"
or "a fastness, a stronghold," or (as a mathematical term) "an area." Here,

571

as not unfrequently in later writers, it is "a region, a district," but the same
fundamental idea is presumed. The relation of %(Spo<; to %copiov is the
same as that of apyt>po<;, %pvo6c, to apyupiov, %pt>aiov, the former
being the metals themselves, the latter the metals worked up into bullion
or coins or plate or trinkets or images, e.g. Macar. Magn. Apocr. 3:42 (p.
147).

572

CANON IV

If any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to
maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the
holy Synod that these also should be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

If any of the clergy shall consent to Celestine or Nestorius, let them be
deposed.

573

EXCURSUS ON PELAGIANISM

The only point which is material to the main object of this volume is that
Pelagius and his fellow heretic Celestius were condemned by the
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy. On this point there can be
no possible doubt. And further than this the Seventh Council by ratifying
the Canons of Trullo received the Canons of the African Code which
include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the Pelagian
heresy to which the attention of the reader is particularly drawn. The
condemnation of these heretics at Ephesus is said to have been due chiefly
to the energy of St. Augustine, assisted very materially by a layman living
in Constantinople by the name of Marius Mercator.

Pelagius and his heresy have a sad interest to us as he is said to have been
born in Britain. He was a monk and preached at Rome with great applause
in the early years of the fifth century. But in his extreme horror of
Manichaeism and Gnosticism he fell into the opposite extreme; and from
the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent evilness of humanity he fell into
the error of denying the necessity of grace.

Pelagius' s doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam's sin injured only
himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are
not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only
need baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not "for the remission of sins"
as is declared in the creed. Further he taught that man could live without
committing any sin at all. And for this there was no need of grace; indeed
grace was not possible, according to his teaching. The only "grace," which
he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace, e.g.
the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like. Petavius
indeed thinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to illumine the
intellect, but this seems quite doubtful.

Pelagius' s writings have come down to us in a more or less — generally
the latter — pure form. There are fourteen books on the Epistles of St.
Paul, also a letter to Demetrius and his Libellus fidei ad Innocentium. In
the writings of St. Augustine are found fragments of Pelagius' s writings on
free will.

574

It would be absurd to attempt in the limits possible to this volume to give
any, even the most sketchy, treatment of the doctrine involved in the
Pelagian controversy: the reader must be referred to the great theologians
for this and to aid him I append a bibliographical table on the subject.

St. Augustine.

St. Jerome.

Marius Mercator, Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii.

Vossius, G. J., Histor. de controv. quas Pel. ejusque reliquioe moverunt.

Noris. Historia Pelagiana.

Gamier, J. Dissertat. in Pelag. in Opera Mar. Mercator.

Quesnel, Dissert, de cone. Africanis in Pelag. causa celebratis etc.

Fuchs, G. D., Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen.

Horn, De sentent. Pat. de peccato orig.

Habert, P. L., Theologioe Groecorum Patrum vindicatoe circa univers.
materiam gratioe.

Petavius, De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag.

The English works on the subject are so well known to the English reader
as to need no mention.

As it is impossible to treat the theological question here, so too is it
impossible to treat the historical question. However I may remind the
reader that Nestorius and his heresy were defended by Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and that he and Celestius were declared by Pope Zosimus to
be innocent in the year 417, a decision which was entirely disregarded by
the rest of the world, a Carthaginian Synod subsequently anathematizing
him. Finally the Pope retracted his former decision, and in 418
anathematized him and his fellow, and gave notice of this in his "epistola
tractoria" to the bishops. Eighteen Italian bishops, who had followed the
Pope in his former decision of a twelve month before, refused to change
their minds at his bidding now, and were accordingly deposed, among them
Julian of Eclanum. After this Pelagius and Celestius found a fitting harbor

575

of refuge with Nestorius of Constantinople, and so all three were
condemned together by the council of Ephesus, he that denied the
incarnation of the Word, and they twain that denied the necessity of that
incarnation and of the grace purchased thereby.

576

CANON V

If any have been condemned for evil practices by the holy Synod, or by
their own bishops; and if, with his usual lack of discrimination, Nestorius
(or his followers) has attempted, or shall hereafter attempt, uncanonically
to restore such persons to communion and to their former rank, we have
declared that they shall not be profited thereby, but shall remain deposed
nevertheless.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

If one condemned by his bishop is received by Nestorius it shall profit him
nothing.

This canon is interesting as shewing that thus early in the history of the
Church, it was not unusual for those disciplined for their faults in one
communion to go to another and there be welcomed and restored, to the
overthrow of discipline and to the lowering of the moral sense of the
people to whom they minister.

577

CANON VI

Likewise, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in each
case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees that, if
they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit their office;
and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

If any layman shall resist the Synod, let him be excommunicated. But if it be
a cleric let him be discharged.

How courageous the passing of this canon was can only be justly
appreciated by those who are familiar with the weight of the imperial
authority at that day in ecclesiastical matters and who will remember that
at the very time this canon was passed it was extremely difficult to say
whether the Emperor would support Cyril's or John's synod.

OBSERVATION OF THE ROMAN EDITORS (Ed: 1608).

In the Vatican books and in some others only these six canons are found;
but in certain texts there is added, under the name of Canon VII., the
definition of the same holy Synod put forth after the Presbyter Charisius
had stated his case, and for Canon VIII. another decree of the synod
concerning the bishops of Cyprus.

578

OBSERVATION OF PHILIP LABBE, S.J.P.

In the Collections of John Zonaras and of Theodore Balsamon, also in the
"Code of the Universal Church" which has John Tilius, Bishop of St.
Brieuc and Christopher Justellus for its editors, are found eight canons of
the Ephesine council, to wit the six which are appended to the foregoing
epistle and two others: but it is altogether a subject of wonder that in the
Codex of Canons, made for the Roman Church by Dionysius Exiguus,
none of these canons are found at all. I suppose that the reason of this is
that the Latins saw that they were not decrees affecting the Universal
Church, but that the Canons set forth by the Ephesine fathers dealt merely
with the peculiar and private matters of Nestorius and of his followers.

The Decree of the same holy Synod, pronounced after hearing the
Exposition [of the Faith] by the Three hundred and eighteen holy and
blessed Fathers in the city of Nice, and the impious formula composed by
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and given to the same holy Synod at Ephesus
by the Presbyter Charisius, of Philadelphia:

579

CANON VII

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is
unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a
different (exepocv) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers
assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or
offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth,
whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy
whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops
from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen,
they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should
be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition
introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the
Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of
Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of
this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be
removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall
likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be
anathematized, as has been afore said.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an alien
from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out.

580

The heading is that found in the ordinary Greek texts. The canon itself is
found verbatim in the Acts — Actio VI. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia,
Tom. III., col. 689.)

BEVERIDGE

"When these things had been read." Balsamon here makes an egregious
mistake, for it was not after the reading of the decree of this council and of
the Nicene Creed, that this canon was set forth, as Balsamon affirms; but
after the reading of the libellum of Charisius, and of the Nestorian Creed,
as is abundantly evident from what we read in the Acts of the council.
From this it is clear that Balsamon had never seen the Acts of this council,
or at least had never carefully studied them, else he could not have written
such a comment.

[With regard to Charisius, Balsamon] makes another mistake. For not only
did this presbyter not follow the evil opinions of Nestorius, but as a
matter of fact exhibited to the synod his libellum written against
Nestorius; in which so far from asserting that Nestorius was orthodox, he
distinctly calls him kockoSo^oc;.

Photius has included this canon in his Nomocanons, Title I., cap. j.

581

EXCURSUS ON THE WORDS tug-civ en'epav.

It has been held by some and was urged by the Greeks at the Council of
Florence, and often before and since, as well as by Pope Leo III., in answer
to the ambassadors of Charlemagne, that the prohibition of the Council of
Ephesus to make, hold, or teach any other faith than that of Nice forbade
anyone, even a subsequent General Council, to add anything to the creed.
This interpretation seems to be shewn to be incorrect from the following
circumstances.

1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had
heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength
of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian
creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that exepocv must
mean "different," "contradictory," and not "another" in the sense of mere
explanatory additions to the already existing creed.

(E. B. Pusey, On the Clause "and the Son," p. 81.)

St. Cyril ought to understand the canon, which he probably himself
framed, as presiding over the Council of Ephesus, as Archbishop of
Alexandria and representative of Celestine, Bishop of Rome. His signature
immediately succeeds the Canon. We can hardly think that we understand
it better than he who probably framed it, nay who presided over the
Council which passed it. He, however, explained that what was not against
the Creed was not beside it. The Orientals had proposed to him, as terms
of communion, that he should "do away with all he had written in epistles,
tomes, or books, and agree with that only faith which had been defined by
our holy Fathers at Nice." But, St. Cyril wrote back: "We all follow that
exposition of faith which was defined by the holy fathers in the city of
Nice, sapping absolutely nothing of the things contained in it. For they are
all right and unexceptionable; and anything curious, after it, is not safe. But
what I have rightly written against the blasphemies of Nestorius no words
will persuade me to say that they were not done well:" and against the
imputation that he "had received an exposition of faith or new Creed, as
dishonoring that old and venerable Creed," he says:

582

"Neither have we demanded of any an exposition of faith, nor have we
received one newly framed by others. For Divine Scripture suffices us, and
the prudence of the holy fathers, and the symbol of faith, framed perfectly
as to all right doctrine. But since the most holy Eastern Bishops differed
from us as to that of Ephesus and were somehow suspected of being
entangled in the meshes of Nestorius, therefore they very wisely made a
defense, to free themselves from blame, and eager to satisfy the lovers of
the blameless faith that they were minded to have no share in his impiety;
and the thing is far from all note of blame. If Nestorius himself, when we
all held out to him that he ought to condemn his own dogmas and choose
the truth instead thereof, had made a written confession thereon, who
would say that he framed for us a new exposition of faith? Why then do
they calumniate the assent of the most holy Bishops of Phoenicia, calling
it a new setting forth of the Creed, whereas they made it for a good and
necessary end, to defend themselves and soothe those who thought that
they followed the innovations of Nestorius? For the holy Ecumenical
Synod gathered at Ephesus provided, of necessity, that no other
exposition of faith besides that which existed, which the most blessed
fathers, speaking in the Holy Ghost, defined, should be brought into the
Churches of God. But they who at one time, I know not how, differed
from it, and were suspected of not being right-minded, following the
Apostolic and Evangelic doctrines, how should they free themselves from
this ill-report? by silence? or rather by self-defense, and by manifesting
the power of the faith which was in them? The divine disciple wrote, "be
ready always to give an answer to every one who asketh you an account
of the hope which is in you." But he who willeth to do this, innovates in
nothing, nor doth he frame any new exposition of faith, but rather maketh
plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath concerning Christ."

2. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, by their practice, are
authoritative exponents of the Canon of Ephesus. For they renewed the
prohibition of the Council of Ephesus to "adduce any other faith," but, in
"the faith" which is not to be set aside, they included not only the Creeds
of Nice and Constantinople, but the definitions at Ephesus and Chalcedon
itself. The statements of the faith were expanded, because fresh
contradictions of the faith had emerged. After directing that both Creeds
should be read, the Council says, "This wise and saving Symbol of Divine

583

grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the
faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the
Incarnation of the Lord." Then, having in detail shewn how both heresies
were confuted by it, and having set forth the true doctrine, they sum up.

"These things being framed by us with all accuracy and care on every side,
the holy and ecumenical Synod defines, that it shall be lawful for no one to
produce or compose, or put together, or hold, or teach others another
faith, and those who venture, etc." (as in the Council of Ephesus).

The Council of Chalcedon enlarged greatly the terms although not the
substance of the faith contained in the Nicene Creed; and that, in view of
the heresies, which had since arisen; and yet renewed in terms the
prohibition of the Canon of Ephesus and the penalties annexed to its
infringement. It shewed, then, in practice, that it did not hold the
enlargement of the things proposed as deride to be prohibited, but only the
producing of things contradictory to the faith once delivered to the saints.
Its prohibition, moreover, to "hold" another faith shews the more that
they meant only to prohibit any contradictory statement of faith. For if
they had prohibited any additional statement not being a contradiction of
its truth, then (as Cardinal Julian acutely argued in the Council of
Florence), any one would fall under its anathema, who held (as all must)
anything not expressed in set terms in the Nicene Creed; such as that God
is eternal or incomprehensible.

It may not be amiss to remember that the argument that Ttioxiv exepocv
forbids any addition to the Creed or any further definition of the faith, was
that urged by the heretics at the Latrocinium, and the orthodox were there
condemned on the ground that they had added to the faith and laid
themselves under the Anathema of Ephesus. How far this interpretation
was from being that of the Council of Chalcedon is evinced by the fact that
it immediately declared that St. Flavian and Bishop Eusebius had been
unjustly deposed, and proceeded to depose those who had deposed them.
After stating these facts Dr. Pusey remarks, "Protestants may reject
consistently the authority of all councils; but on what grounds any who
accept their authority can insist on their own private interpretation of a

584

canon of one council against the authority of another General Council
which rejected that interpretation, I see not."

4. The Fifth Ecumenical Council, the Second of Constantinople, received
both the creeds of Nice and that of Constantinople, as well of the
definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and yet at the end of the fourth
Session we find in the acts that the fathers cried out, with respect to the
creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia: "This creed Satan composed. Anathema
to him that composed this creed! The First Council of Ephesus
anathematized this creed and its author. We know only one symbol of
faith, that which the holy fathers of Nice set forth and handed down. This
also the three holy Synods handed down. Into this we were baptized, and
into this we baptize, etc., etc."

From this it is clearer than day that these fathers looked upon the creed of
Constantinople, with its additions, to be yet the same creed as that of
Nice.

(Le Quien, Diss. Dam., n. 37.)

In the Sixth Council also, no one objecting, Peter of Nicomedia, Theodore,
and other bishops, clerks, and monks, who had embraced the Monothelite
heresy, openly recited a Creed longer and fuller than the Nicene.

In the Seventh Synod also, another was read written by Theodore of
Jerusalem: and again, Basil of Ancyra, and the other Bishops, who had
embraced the errors of the Iconoclasts, again offered another, although the
Canon of Ephesus pronounced, that "it should not be lawful to offer to
heretics, who wished to be converted to the Church, any other creed than
the Nicene." In this same Synod, was read another profession of faith,
which Tarasius had sent to the Patriarchs of the Eastern sees. It contains
the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan Creed, variously enlarged and
interpolated. But of the Holy Spirit it has specifically this: "And in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, which proceedeth from the Father
through the Son." But since the Greeks at the Council of Florence said,
that these were individual, not common, formulae of faith, here are others,
which are plainly common and solemn, which are contained in their own
rituals. They do not baptize a Hebrew or a Jew, until he have pronounced
a profession of Christian Faith, altogether different from the Creed of

585

Constantinople, as may be seen in the Euchologion. In the consecration of
a Bishop, the Bishop elect is first bidden to recite the Creed of
Constantinople; and then, as if this did not suffice, a second and a third are
demanded of him; of which the last contains that aforesaid symbol,
intermingled with various declarations. Nay, Photius himself is pointed
out to be the author of this interpolated symbol. I pass by other formulae,
which the Greeks have framed for those who return to the Church from
divers heresies or sects, although the terms of the Canon of Ephesus are,
that "it is unlawful to propose any other faith to those who wish to be
converted to the Church, from heathenism, or Judaism, or any heresy
whatever."

The Judgment of the same Holy Synod, pronounced on the petition
presented to it by the Bishops of Cyprus:

586

CANON vm

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved
of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have
reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the
ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and
which touches the liberties of all. Wherefore, since injuries affecting all
require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and
particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since
those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in
writing and by word of mouth that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way
held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in
Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of
the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for
themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall
be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none
of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which
has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or
that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected
[a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be
transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honor be brought in under pretext
of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty
which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his
own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every
province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to
it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom,
unchanged and uninjured: every Metropolitan having permission to take,
for his own security, a copy of these acts. And if any one shall bring
forward a rule contrary to what is hero determined, this holy and
ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

587

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Let the rights of each province be preserved pure and inviolate. No attempt
to introduce any form contrary to these shall be of any avail.

The caption is the one given in the ordinary Greek texts. The canon is
found word for word in the VII Session of the Council, with the heading,
"A decree of the same holy Synod." (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom.
III., col. 802.)

I have followed in reading "the Canons of the Holy Apostles" the reading
in Balsamon and Zonaras, and that of Elias Ehingerus Augustanus (so says
Beveridge) in his edition of the Greek canons, A.D. 1614. But the Bodleian
MS, and John of Antioch in his collection of the Canons, and the Codex
edited by Christopher Justellus read "of the Holy Fathers" instead of "of
the Holy Apostles." Beveridge is of opinion that this is the truer reading,
for while no doubt the Ephesine Fathers had in mind the Apostolic
Canons, yet they seem to have more particularly referred in this place to
the canons of Nice. And this seems to be intimated in the libellum of the
Bishops of Cyprus, who gave rise to this very decree, in which the
condemned practice is said to be "contrary to the Apostolic Canons and to
the definitions of the most holy Council of Nice."

This canon Photius does not recognize, for in the Preface to his
Nomocanon he distinctly writes that there were but seven canons adopted
by the Ephesine Synod, and in the first chapter of the first title he cites
the pre- ceding canon as the seventh, that is the last. John of Antioch
likewise says that there are but seven canons of Ephesus, but reckons this
present canon as the seventh, from which Beveridge concludes that he
rejects the Canon concerning Charisius (vii).

BEVERIDGE

588

Concerning the present canon, of rather decree, the Bishop of Antioch,
who had given occasion to the six former canons, gave also occasion for the
enacting of this, by arrogating to himself the right of ordaining in the Island
of Cyprus, in violation of former usage. After the bishops of that island,
who are mentioned in the canon, had presented their statements (libellum)
to the Synod, the present decree was set forth, in which warning was given
that no innovation should be tolerated in Ecclesiastical administration,
whether in Cyprus or elsewhere; but that in all Dioceses and Provinces
their ancient rights and privileges should be preserved.

589

THE LETTER OF THE SAME HOLY SYNOD OF

EPHESUS, TO THE SACRED SYNOD IN

PAMPHYLIA CONCERNING EUSTATHIUS WHO

HAD BEEN THEIR METROPOLITAN

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tome III., col. 806.)

Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, "Do all things with
vice," it is especially their duty who have had the priestly ministry
allotted to them to examine with all diligence whatever matters are to be
transacted. For to those who will so spend their lives, it comes to pass
both that they are established in [the enjoyment of] an honest hope
concerning what belongs to them, and that they are born along, as by a
favoring breeze, in things that they desire: so that, in truth, the saying [of
the Scripture] has much reason [to commend it] . But there are times when
bitter and intolerable grief swoops down upon the mind, and has the effect
of cruelly beclouding it, so as to carry it away from the pursuit of what is
needful, and persuade it to consider that to be of service which is in its
[very] nature mischievous. Something of this kind we have seen endured
by that most excellent and most religious Bishop Eustathius. For it is in
evidence that he has been ordained canonically; but having been much
disturbed, as he declares, by certain parties, and having entered upon
circumstances he had not foreseen, therefore, though fully able to repel the
slanders of his persecutors, he nevertheless, through an extraordinary
inexperience of affairs, declined to battle with the difficulties which beset
him, and in some way that we know not set forth an act of resignation. Yet
it behooved him, when he had been once en-trusted with the priestly care,
to cling to it with spiritual energy, and, as it were, to strip himself to strive
against the troubles and gladly to endure the sweat for which he had
bargained. But inasmuch as he proved himself to be deficient in practical
capacity, having met with this misfortune rather from inexperience than
from cowardice and sloth, your holiness has of necessity ordained our
most excellent and most religious brother and fellow-bishop, Theodore, as
the overseer of the Church; for it was not reasonable that it should remain

590

in widowhood, and that the Savior's sheep should pass their time without
a shepherd. But when he came to us weeping, not contending with the
aforenamed most religious Bishop Theodore for his See or Church, but in
the meantime seeking only for his rank and title as a bishop, we all
suffered with the old man in his grief, and considering his weeping as our
own, we hastened to discover whether the aforenamed [Eustathius] had
been subjected to a legal deposition, or whether, forsooth, he had been
convicted on any of the absurd charges alleged by certain parties who had
poured forth idle gossip against his reputation. And indeed we learned that
nothing of such a kind had taken place, but rather that his resignation had
been counted against the said Eustathins instead of a [regular] indictment.
Wherefore, we did by no means blame your holiness for being compelled
to ordain into his place the aforenamed most excellent Bishop Theodore.
But forasmuch as it was not seemly to contend much against the
unpractical character of the man, while it was rather necessary to have
pity on the eider who, at so advanced an age, was now so far away from
the city which had given him birth, and from the dwelling-places of his
fathers, we have judicially pronounced and decreed without any
opposition, that he shall have both the name, and the rank, and the
communion of the episcopate. On this condition, however, only, that he
shall not ordain, and that he shall not take and minister to a Church of his
own individual authority; but that [he shall do so only] if taken as an
assistant, or when appointed, if it should so chance, by a brother and
fellow-bishop, in accordance with the ordinance and the love which is in
Christ. If, however, ye shall determine anything more favorable towards
him, either now or hereafter, this also will be pleasing to the Holy Synod.

591

THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD TO POPE CELESTINE

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 659; also in Migne, Pat. Lat.
[reprinted from Galland., Vett. Patr., Tom. ix.], Tom. L., Ep. xx., col. 511.)

THE RELATION WHICH THE HOLY COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

SENT TO POPE CELESTINE; IN WHICH ARE EXPLAINED WHAT

THINGS WERE DONE IN THAT HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL.

The Holy Synod which by the grace of God was assembled at Ephesus the
Metropolis to the most holy and our fellow-minister Coelestine, health in
the Lord.

The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your care for the right faith, so
grateful and highly pleasing to God the Savior of us all, are worthy of all
admiration. For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all
things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own
care. But since it is right that all things which have taken place should be
brought to the knowledge of your holiness, we are writing of necessity [to
inform you] that, by the will of Christ the Savior of us all, and in
accordance with the orders of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors,
we assembled together in the Metropolis of the Ephesians from many and
far scattered regions, being in all over two hundred bishops. Then, in
accordance with the decrees of the Christ-loving Emperors by whom we
were assembled, we fixed the date of the meeting of the holy Synod as the
Feast of the Holy Pentecost, all agreeing thereto, especially as it was
contained in the letters of the Emperors that if anyone did not arrive at the
appointed time, he was absent with no good conscience, and was
inexcusable both before God and man. The most reverend John bishop of
Antioch stopped behind; not in singleness of heart, nor because the length
of the journey made the impediment, but hiding in his mind his plan and
his thought (which was so displeasing to God,) [a plan and thought] which
he made clear when not long afterwards he arrived at Ephesus.

592

Therefore we put off the assembling [of the council] after the appointed
day of the Holy Pentecost for sixteen whole days; in the meanwhile many
of the bishops and clerics were overtaken with illness, and much burdened
by the expense, and some even died. A great injury was thus being done to
the great Synod, as your holiness easily perceives. For he used perversely
such long delay that many from much greater distances arrived before him.

Nevertheless after sixteen days had passed, certain of the bishops who
were with him, to wit, two Metropolitans, the one Alexander of Apamea,
and the other Alexander of Hierapolis, arrived before him. And when we
complained of the tardy coming of the most reverend bishop John, not
once, but often, we were told, "He gave us command to announce to your
reverence, that if anything should happen to delay him, not to put off the
Synod, but to do what was right." After having received this message, —
and as it was manifest, as well from his delay as from the announcements
just made to us, that he refused to attend the Council, whether out of
friendship to Nestorius, or because he had been a cleric of a church under
his sway, or out of regard to petitions made by some in his favor, — the
Holy Council sat in the great church of Ephesus, which bears the name of
Mary.

But when all with zeal had come together, Nestorius alone was found
missing from the council, thereupon the holy Synod sent him admonition
in accordance with the canons by bishops, a first, second, and third time.
But he surrounding his house with soldiers, set himself up against the
ecclesiastical laws, neither did he shew himself, nor give any satisfaction
for his iniquitous blasphemies.

After this the letters were read which were written to him by the most
holy and most reverend bishop of the Church of Alexandria, Cyril, which
the Holy Synod approved as being orthodox and without fault (6p9co<;
koci 6cXr|7tTco<; e%eiv), and in no point out of agreement either with the
divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith banded down and set forth
in the great synod of holy Fathers, which assembled sometime ago at Nice
in Bithynia, as your holiness also rightly having examined this has given
witness.

On the other hand there was read the letter of Nestorius, which was
written to the already mentioned most holy and reverend brother of ours

593

and fellow-minister, Cyril, and the Holy Synod was of opinion that those
things which were taught in it were wholly alien from the Apostolic and
Evangelical faith, sick with many and strange blasphemies.

His most impious expositions were likewise read, and also the lettewritten
to him by your holiness, in which he was properly condemned as one who
had written blasphemy and had inserted irreligious views (cpcov&t;) in his
private exegesis, and after this a just sentence of deposition was
pronounced against him; especially is this sentence just, because he is so
far removed from being penitent, or from a confession of the matters in
which he blasphemed, while yet he had the Church of Constantinople, that
even in the very metropolis of the Ephesians, he delivered a sermon to
certain of the Metropolitical bishops, men who were not ignorant, but
learned and God-fearing, in which he was bold enough to say, "I do not
confess a two or three months old God," and he said other things more
outrageous than this.

Therefore as an impious and most pestilent heresy, which perverts our
most pure religion (GpnaKe'iocv) and which overthrows from the
foundation the whole economy of the mystery [i.e. the Incarnation], we
cast it down, as we have said above. But it was not possible, as it seemed,
that those who had the sincere love of Christ, and were zealous in the Lord
should not experience many trials. For we had hoped that the most
reverend John, bishop of Antioch would have praised the sedulous care
and piety of the Synod, and that perchance he would have blamed the
slowness of Nestorius's deposition. But all things turned out contrary to
our hope. For he was found to be an enemy, and a most warlike one, to the
holy Synod, and even to the orthodox faith of the churches, as these things
indicate.

For as soon as he was come to Ephesus, before he had even shaken off the
dust of the journey, or changed his traveling dress, he assembled those
who had sided with Nestorius and who had uttered blasphemies against
their head, and only not derided the glory of Christ, and gathering as a
college to himself, I suppose, thirty men, having the name of bishops
(some of whom were without sees, wandering about and having no
dioceses, others again had for many years been deposed for serious causes
from their metropolises, and with these were Pelagians and the followers

594

of Celestius, and some of those who were turned out of Thessaly),he had
the presumption to commit a piece of iniquity no man had ever done
before. For all by himself he drew up a paper which he called a deposition,
and reviled and reproached the most holy and reverend Cyril, bishop of
Alexandria, and the most reverend Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, our
brother, and fellow-minister, none of us knowing anything about it, and
not even those who were thus reviling knew what was being done, nor for
what reason they had presumed to do this. But ignoring the anger of God
for such behavior, and unheeding the ecclesiastical canons, and forgetting
that they were hastening to destruction by such a course of action, under
the name of an excommunication, they then reviled the whole Synod. And
placing these acts of theirs on the public bulletin boards, they exposed
them to be read by such as chose to do so, having posted them on the
outside of the theatres, that they might make a spectacle of their impiety.
But not even was this the limit of their audacity; but as if they had done
something in accordance with the canons, they dared to bring what they
had done to the ears of the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors. Things
being in this condition, the most holy and reverend Cyril, bishop of
Alexandria and the most reverend Memnon bishop of the city of Ephesus,
offered some books composed by themselves and accusing the most
reverend Bishop John and those who with him had done this thing, and
conjuring our holy Synod that John and those with him should be
summoned according to the canons, so that they might apologize for their
dating acts, and if they had any complaints to make they might speak and
prove them, for in their written deposition, or rather sheet of abuse, they
made this statement as a pretext, "They are Apollinarians, and Arians, and
Eunomians, and therefore they have been deposed by us." When,
therefore, those who had endured their reviling were present, we again
necessarily assembled in the great church, being more than two hundred
bishops, and by a first, second, and third call on two days, we summoned
John and his companions to the Synod, in order that they might examine
those who had been reviled, and might make explanations, and tell the
causes which led them to draw up the sentence of deposition; but he did
not dare to come.

But it was right that he, if he could truly prove the before-mentioned holy
men to be heretics, both should come and prove the truth of that which,

595

accepted as a true and indubitable crime, induced the temerarious sentence
against them. But being condemned by his own conscience he did not
come. Now what he had planned was this. For he thought that when that
foundation-less and most unjust reviling was done away, the just vote of
the Synod which it cast against the heretic Nestorius would likewise be
dissolved. Being justly vexed, therefore, we determined to inflict according
to law the same penalty upon him and those who were with him, which he
contrary to law had pronounced against those who had been convicted of
no fault. But although most justly and in accordance with law he would
have suffered this punishment yet in the hope that by our patience his
temerity might be conquered, we have reserved this to the decision of your
holiness. In the meanwhile, we have deprived them of communion and
have taken from them all priestly power, so that they may not be able to
do any harm by their opinions. For those who thus ferociously, and
cruelly, and uncanonically are wont to rush to such frightful and most
wicked things, how was it not necessary that they should be stripped of
the powers which [as a matter of fact] they did not possess, of being able
to do harm.

With our brethren and fellow-ministers, both Cyril the bishop and
Memnon, who had endured reproval at their hands, we are all in
communion, and after the rashness [of their accusers] we both have and do
perform the liturgy in common, all together celebrating the Synaxis, having
made of none effect their play in writing, and having thus shewn that it
lacked all validity and effect. For it was mere reviling and nothing else. For
what kind of a synod could thirty men hold, some of whom were marked
with the stamp of heresy, and some without sees and ejected [from their
dioceses]? Or what strength could it have in opposition to a synod
gathered from all the whole world? For there were sitting with us the most
reverend bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and with them the most holy
presbyter Philip, all of whom were sent by your holiness, who gave to us
your presence and filled the place of the Apostolic See (xf|<; 6c7toGToXiKf|<;
KocOeSpocc;). Let then your holiness be angered at what took place. But if
license were granted to such as wished to pour reproval upon the greater
sees, and thus unlawfully and uncanonically to give sentence or rather to
utter revilings against those over whom they have no power, against those
who for religion have endured such great conflicts, by reason of which now

596

also piety shines forth through the prayers of your holiness [if, I say, all
this should be tolerated], the affairs of the Church would fall into the
greatest confusion. But when those who dare to do such things shall have
been chastised aright, all disturbance will cease, and the reverence due to
the canons will be observed by all.

When there had been read in the holy Synod what had been done touching
the deposition of the most irreligious Pelagians and Coelestines, of
Coelestius, and Pelagius, and Julian, and Praesidius, and Floras, and
Marcellian, and Orontius, and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed
it right (e8iKaic6aa(j,ev)that the determinations of your holiness
concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the
same mind, holding them deposed. And that you may know in full all
things that have been done, we have sent you a copy of the Acts, and of
the subscriptions of the Synod. We pray that you, dearly beloved t and
most longed for, may be strong and mindful of us in the Lord.

597

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD

OF EPHESUS AGAINST THE IMPIOUS MESSALIANS WHO ARE

ALSO CALLED EUCHETAE ANDENTHUSIASTS.

(Found in Latin only. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 809.)

When the most pious and religious bishops, Valerian and Amphilochius
had come to us, they proposed that we should consider in common the
case of the Messalians, that is the Euchetes or Enthusiasts, who were
flourishing in Pamphylia, or by what other name this most contaminating
heresy is called. And when we were considering the question, the most
pious and religious bishop Valerian, presented to us a synodical schedule
which had been drawn up concerning them in the great city of
Constantinople, under Sisinnius of blessed memory: What we read therein
was approved by all, as well composed and as a due presentation of the
case. And it seemed good to us all, and to the most pious bishops Valerian
and Amphilochius and to all the most pious bishops of the provinces of
Pamphylia and Lycaonia, that all things contained in that Synodical chart
should be confirmed and in no way rescinded; also that the action taken at
Alexandria might also be made firm, so that all, those who throughout the
whole province are of the Messalian or Enthusiastic heresy, or suspected
of being tainted with that heresy, whether clerics or laymen, may come
together; and if they shall anathematize in writing, according to the decrees
pronounced in the aforesaid synod [their errors], if they are clergymen
they may remain such; and if laymen they may be admitted to
communion. But if they refuse to anathematize, if they were presbyters or
deacons or in any other ecclesiastical grade, let them be cast out of the
clergy and from their grade, and also from communion; if they be lay-men
let them be anathematized.

Furthermore those convicted of this heresy are no more to be permitted to
have the rule of our monasteries, lest tares be sown and increase. And we
give command that the most pious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius,
and the rest of the most reverend bishops of the whole province shall pay
attention that this decree be carried into effect. In addition to this it

598

seemed good that the filthy book of this heresy, which is called the
"Asceticon," should be anathematized, as composed by heretics, a copy of
which the most religious and pious Valerian brought with him. Likewise
anything savoring of their impiety which may be found among the people,
let it be anathema.

Moreover when they come together, let there be commended by them in
writing such things as are useful and necessary for concord, and
communion, and arrangement (dispositionem vel dispensationem). But
should any question arise in connection with the present business, and if it
should prove to be difficult and ambiguous, what is not approved by the
most pious bishops Valerian and Amphilochius, and the other bishops
throughout the province, they ought to discuss all things by reference to
what is written. And if the most pious bishops of the Lycians or of the
Lycaonians shall have been passed over; nevertheless let not a
Metropolitan be left out of whatever province he may be. And let these
things be inserted in the Acts so that if any have need of them they would
find how also to expound these things more diligently to others.

NOTE ON THE MESSALIANS OR MASSALIANS.

(Tillemont, Memoires, Tom. VIIL, Seconde Partie. Condensed.)

St. Epiphanius distinguishes two sorts of persons who were called by the
name of Messalians, the one and the more ancient were heathen, the other
were Christian in name.

The Messalians who bore the Christian name had no beginning, nor end,
nor chief, nor fixed faith. Their first writers were Dadoes, Sabas,
Adelphus, Hermes, Simeon and some others. Adelphus was neither monk
nor clerk, but a layman. Sabas had taken the habit of an anchorite and was
surnamed "the Eunuch," because he had mutilated himself. Adelphus was
of Mesopotamia and was considered their leader, so that they are
sometimes called "Adelphians." They are also called "Eustathians."
"Euchites" is the Greek equivalent of "Messalians" in Hebrew. They were
also called "Enthusiasts" or "Corentes" because of the agitation the devils
caused them, which they attributed to the Holy Spirit.

599

St. Epiphanius thought that these heretics sprang up in the time of
Constance, although Theodoret does not put them down until the days of
Valentinian. They came from Mesopotamia, but spread as far as Antioch
by the year 376.

They pretended to renounce the world, and to give up their possessions,
and under the habit of monks they taught Manichaean impieties, and
others still more detestable.

Their principal tenet was that everyone inherited from his ancestors a
demon, who had possession of his soul from the moment of his birth, and
always led it to evil. That baptism cut away the outside branches of sin,
but could not free the soul of this demon, and that therefore its reception
was useless. That only constant prayer could drive out this demon. That
when it was expelled, the Holy Spirit descended and gave visible and
sensible marks of his presence, and delivered the body from all the
uprisings of passion, and the soul from the inclination to evil, so that
afterwards there was no need of fasting, nor of controlling lust by the
precepts of the Gospel.

Besides this chief dogma, gross errors, contrary to the first principles of
religion, were attributed to them. That the divinity changed itself in
different manners to unite itself to their souls. They held that the body of
Christ was infinite like his divine nature; they did not hesitate to say that
his body was at first full of devils which were driven out when the Word
took it upon him. They claimed that they possessed clear knowledge of
the state of souls after death, read the hearts and desires of man, the
secrets of the future and saw the Holy Trinity with their bodily eyes.
They affirmed that man could not only attain perfection but equal the
deity in virtue and knowledge.

They never fasted, slept men and women together, in warm weather in the
open streets. But certain say that before attaining to this liberty of license
three years of mortification were required,

The most well-known point of their discipline is that they forbade all
manual labor as evil, and unworthy of the spiritual.

Harmenopulus in his Basilicoe (Tom. I. Lib. ix.) says that they held the
Cross in horror, that they refused to honor the Holy Virgin, or St. John the

600

Baptist, or any of the Saints unless they were Martyrs; that they
mutilated themselves at will, that they dissolved marriages, that they
forswore and perjured themselves without scruple, that women were
appointed as mistresses of the sect to instruct and govern men, even
priests.

Although so opposed to the faith of the Church, yet for all this the
Messalians did not separate themselves from her communion. They did
not believe in the Communion as a mystery which sanctifies us, which
must be approached with fear and faith, but only came to the holy Table
to hide themselves and to pass for Catholics, for this was one of their
artifices. When asked, they had no hesitation in denying all that they
believed, and were willing to anathematize those who thought with them.
And all this they did without fear, because they were taught they had
attained perfection, that is impassibility.

Vide Theodoret, H. E., Lib. iv., cap. xi.

Photius tells us that John of Antioch wrote against these heretics.

St. Maximus the Abbot speaks of this heresy as still existing in the Vllth
Century, and as practicing the most abominable infamies. Photius bears
witness of its resuscitation in his days in Cappadocia with its wonted
corruptions. Harmenopulus remarks that a certain Eleutherius of
Paphlagonia had added to it new crimes, and that in part it became the
source of the sect of the Bogomiles, so well known in the decadence of the
Greek empire.

601

DECREE OF THE SYNOD IN THE MATTER OF
EUPREPIUS AND CYRIL

(Found in Latin only. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 810.)

The petition of the most pious bishops Euprepius and Cyril, which is set
forth in the papers they offered, is honest. Therefore from the holy canons
and the external laws, which have from ancient custom the force of law, let
no innovation be made in the cities of Europa, but according to the ancient
custom they shall be governed by the bishops by whom they have been
formerly governed. For since there never was a metropolitan who had
power otherwise, so neither hereafter shall there be any departure from the
ancient custom.

NOTE.

(Hist, of the Councils, Vol. III., p. 77.)

Two Thracian bishops, Euprepius of Biza (Bizya) and Cyril of Coele,
gave occasion for a decree, praying for protection against their
Metropolitan, Fritilas of Heraclea, who had gone over to the party of John
of Antioch, and at the same time for the confirmation of the previous
practice of holding two bishoprics at the same time. The Synod granted
both.

602

THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

A.D. 451.

Emperors. — Marcian and Pulcheria (in the East).
Valentinian III. (in the West).

Pope. — Leo I.

Elenchus.

General Introduction.

Extracts from the Acts, Session I. Session II.

The Letter of Cyril to John ofAntioch.

Extracts from the Acts, Session II., continued.

The Tome of St. Leo.

Extracts from the Acts, Session II., continued.

Session III.

The Sentence of Condemnation of Dioscorus.

Session IV. Session V.

The Definition of Faith of the Council, with Notes.

Session VI.

Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch, with Notes.

Session VII.

Decree with regard to Bp. of Ephesus. Session XII.

Decree with regard to Nicomedia. Session XIII.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Canon XXVIII., on its later history.

Extracts from the Acts, Session XVI.

603

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

I should consider it a piece of impertinence were I to attempt to add
anything to what has been already said with regard to the Council of
Chalcedon. The literature upon the subject is so great and so bitterly
polemical that I think I shall do well in laying before my readers the Acts,
practically complete on all disputed points, and to leave them to draw
their own conclusions. I shall not, however, be liable to the charge of
unfairness if I quote at some length the deductions of the Eagle of Meaux,
the famous Bossuet, from these acts; and since his somewhat isolated
position as a Gallican gives him a singular fitness to serve in this and
similar questions as a mediator between Catholics and Protestants, his
remarks upon this Council will, I think, be read with great interest and
respect.

(Bossuet. Defensio Dec. Cleri Gallic. Lib. VII., cap. xvij. [Translation by
Allies].)

An important point treated in the Council of Chalcedon, that is, the
establishing of the faith, and the approval of Leo's letter, is as follows:
Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius
himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by
subscription that letter, before the council took place; and in the council
itself the Fathers had often cried out, "We believe, as Leo: Peter hath
spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth
is sufficient for the Faith: no other exposition may be made." Things went
so far, that they would hardly permit a definition to be made by the
council. But neither subscriptions privately made before the council, nor
these vehement cries of the Fathers in the council, were thought sufficient
to tranquilize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, for fear that a
matter so important might seem determined rather by outcries than by fair
and legitimate discussion. And the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, "It
is a few who cry out, not the whole council which speaks." So it was
determined, that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the
council, and a definition of faith be written by the synod itself. So the acts
of foregoing councils being previously read, the magistrates proposed
concerning Leo's letter, "As we see the divine Gospels laid before your

604

Piety, let each one of the assembled bishops declare, whether the
exposition of the 318 Fathers at Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards
assembled in the imperial city, agrees with the letter of the most reverend
Archbishop Leo."

After the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form, it
will be worth while to weigh the sentences and, as they are called, the
votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they
approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much
zeal; why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the
council. Anatolius first gives his sentence. "The letter of the most holy
and religious- Archbishop Leo agrees with the creed of our 318 Fathers at
Nice, and of the 150 who afterwards assembled at Constantinople, and
confirmed the same faith, and with the proceedings at Ephesus under the
most blessed Cyril, who is among the saints, by the Ecumenical and holy
Council, when it condemned Nestorius. I therefore agree to it, and
willingly subscribe to it." These are the words of one plainly deliberating,
not blindly subscribing out of obedience. The rest say to the same effect:
"It agrees, and I subscribe." Many plainly and expressly, "It agrees, and I
therefore subscribe." Some add, "It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is correct."
Others, "I am sure that it agrees." Others, "As it is concordant, and has
the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe." Others, "This is the faith we
have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we baptize."
Others, and a great part, "As I see, as I feel, as I have proved, as I find that
it agrees, I subscribe." Others, "As I am persuaded, instructed, informed,
that all agrees, I subscribe." Many set forth their difficulties, mostly
arising from a foreign language; others from the subject matter, saying, that
they had heard the letter, "and in very many points were assured it was
right; some few words stood in their way, which seemed to point at a
certain division in the person of Christ." They add, that they had been
informed by Paschasinus and the Legates "that there is no division, but
one Christ; therefore," they say, "we agree and subscribe." Others after
mentioning what Paschasinus and Lucentius had said, thus conclude: "By
this we have been satisfied and, considering that it agrees,in all things with
the holy Fathers, we agree and subscribe." Where the Illyrian bishops, and
others who before that examination had expressed their acclamations to the
letter, again cry out, "We all say the same thing, and agree with this." So

605

that, indeed, it is evident that, in the council itself, and before it their
agreement is based on this that, after weighing the matter, they considered,
they judged, they were persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and
perceived that the common faith of all and each had been set forth by Leo.
This is that examination of Leo's letter, synodically made at Chalcedon,
and placed among the acts.

(Gallia Orthod., LIX.)

Nor did Anatolius and the other bishops receive it, until they had
deliberated, and found that Leo's letter agreed with the preceding councils.

(Gallia Orthod., LX.)

But here a singular discussion arises between the eminent Cardinals
Bellarmine and Baronius. The latter, and with him a large number of our
theologians, recognize the letter of Leo as the Type and Rule of faith, by
which all Churches were bound: but Bellarmine, alarmed at the examination
which he could not deny, answers thus: "Leo had sent his letter to the
council, not as containing his final and definitive sentence, but as an
instruction, assisted by which the bishops might form a better judgment."
But, most eminent man, allow me to say that Leo, upon the appeal of
Eutyches, and at the demand of Flavian, composed this letter for a
summary of the faith, and sent it to every Church in all parts, when as yet
no one thought about a council. Therefore it was not an instruction to the
council which he provided, but an Apostolic sentence which he put forth.
The fact is that out of this strait there was no other escape: Baronius will
not allow that a letter, confirmed by so great an authority of the Apostolic
See, should be attributed to any other power but that which is supreme
and indefectible: Bellarmine will not take that to emanate from the
supreme and indefectible authority, which was subjected to synodical
inquiry, and deliberation. What, then, is the issue of this conflict, unless
that it is equally evident that the letter was written with the whole
authority of the Apostolic See, and yet subjected, as usual, to the
examination of an Universal Council.

(lb. LXI.)

And in this we follow no other authority than Leo himself, who speaks
thus in his letter to Theodoret: "What God had before decreed by our

606

ministry, he confirmed by the irreversible assent of the whole
brotherhood, to shew that what was first put forth in form by the First
See of all, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world,
really proceeded from himself." Here is a decree, as Baronius says, but not
as Bellarmine says, an instruction: here is a judgment of the whole world
upon a decree of the Apostolic Sec. He proceeds: "For in order that the
consent of other sees to that which the Lord of all appointed to preside
over the rest might not appear flattery, nor any other adverse suspicion
creep in, persons were at first found who doubted concerning our
judgments." And not only heretics, but even the Fathers of the council
themselves, as the acts bear witness. Here the First See shews a fear of
flattery, if doubt about its judgments were forbidden. Moreover, "The
truth itself likewise is both more clearly conspicuous, and more strongly
maintained, when after examination confirms what previous faith had
taught." Here in plain words he speaks of an examination by the council,
de fide, not by himself, as they wretchedly object, but of that faith which
the decretal letter set forth. And at length that same letter is issued as the
Rule, but confirmed by the assent of the universal holy Council, or as he
had before said, after that it is confirmed by the irreversible assent of the
whole Brotherhood. Out of this expression of that great Pontiff, the
Gallican clergy drew theirs, that in questions of faith the judgment is, what
Tertullian calls, "not to be altered;" what Leo calls, "not to be
reconsidered," only when the assent of the Church is added.

(Defens. Dec. Cleri Gall. VII. xvij.)

This certainly no one can be blamed for holding with him and with the
Fathers of Chalcedon. The forma is set forth by the Apostolic See, yet it
is to be received with a judgment, and that free, and each bishop
individually is inferior to the First, yet so that all together pass judgment
even on his decree.

They conceived no other way of removing all doubt; for, after the
conclusion of the synod, the Emperor thus proclaims: "Let then all
profane contentions cease, for he is indeed impious and sacrilegious, who,
after the sentence of so many priests, leaves anything for his own opinion
to consider." He then prohibits all discussion concerning religion; for, says
he, "he does an injury to the judgment of the most religious council, who

607

endeavors to open afresh, and publicly discuss, what has been once
judged, and rightly ordered." Here in the condemnation of Eutyches is the
order of Ecclesiastical judgments in questions of faith. He is judged by his
proper Bishop, Flavian: the cause is reheard, reconsidered by the Pope St.
Leo; it is decided by a declaration of the Apostolic See: after that
declaration follows the examination, inquiry, judgment of the Fathers or
bishops, in a General Council: after the declaration has been approved by
the judgment of the Fathers no place is any longer left for doubt or
discussion.

608

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 93.)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See,
stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We
received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop
of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions
say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if
he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we
must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or
else we leave.

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do
you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See,
said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with
what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically
made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See,
said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give
sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to
hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which
had never taken place nor can take place.

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic
See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and
apostolic bishop ["Pope" for "bishop" in the Latin], who governs the

609

Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic
traditions.

The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you
should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray.

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic
See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as
that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give
judgment].

The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of
judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.

And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the
bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (xf\q iepd<;
at>yKXr|Tot)) had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman
bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence,
Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping
into the midst, said:

[He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read.
Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against
Eutyches (col. 175).]

And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly
(/U7tep(p'ur|<; a-uyKXriTOf;) said: What do the most reverend bishops of the
present holy synod say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of
holy memory, preserve, the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any
respect err concerning it?

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See,
said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded
the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most
blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome.

Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The
blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our
fathers.

610

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said;
Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See
and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was
condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most
holy synod.

Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said: Archbishop
Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in
accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo.
And this we all receive with zeal.

Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said;
Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of
blessed memory.

[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions. The
reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]

And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop
of Alexandria said, I receive "the of two;" "the two" I do not receive (to
ek 8\)o 8e%ojj,ou to 8\>o ov 8e%ojj,ou) I am forced to be impudent, but
the matter is one which touches my soul.

[After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of
the Latrocinium ofEphesus completed. The judges then postponed to the
morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus
and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly
sentenced Flavian. This met with the approval of all the bishops except
those oflllyrica who said: "We all have erred, let us all be pardoned. "
(col. 323.)]

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said; Let each one of the
most reverend bishops of the present synod, hasten to set forth how he
believes, writing without any fear, but placing the fear of God before his
eyes; knowing that our most divine and pious Lord believes according to
the ecthesis of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and
according to the ecthesis of the one hundred and fifty after them, and
according to the Canonical epistles and ectheses of the holy fathers
Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and according to the two
canonical epistles of Cyril, which were confirmed and published in the

611

first Council of Ephesus, nor does he in any point depart from the faith of
the same. For the most reverend archbishop of Old Rome, Leo, appears to
have sent a letter to Flavian of blessed memory, with reference to
Eutyches's unbelieving doubt which was springing up against the Catholic
Church.

End of the first Actio.

612

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II.

(L. and C, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 338.)

When all were seated before the rails of the most holy altar, the most
superb and glorious judges and the great (uTtepcp-urn;) senate said; At a
former meeting the question was examined of the condemnation of the
most reverend bishop Flavian of blessed memory and Eusebius, and it was
patent to you all with what justice and accuracy the examination was
conducted: and it was proved that they had been cruelly and improperly
condemned. What course we should pursue in this matter became clear
after your deliberations. Now however the question to be enquired into,
studied, and decided, is how the true faith is to be established, which is the
chief end for which this Council has been assembled. As we know that ye
are to render to God a strict account not only for your own souls in
particular, but as well for the souls of all of us who desire rightly to be
taught all things that pertain to religion, and that all ambiguity be taken
away, by the agreement and consent of all the holy fathers, and by their
united exposition and doctrine; hasten therefore without any fear of
pleasing or displeasing, to set forth (eKGeaGoci) the pure faith, so that
they who do not seem to believe with all the rest, may be brought to unity
through the acknowledging of the truth. For we wish you to know that the
most divine and pious Lord of the whole world and ourselves hold the
orthodox faith set forth by the 318 and by the 150 holy fathers, and what
also has been taught by the rest of the most holy and glorious fathers, and
in accordance with this is our belief.

The most reverend bishops cried; Any other setting forth (eKGeaiv
ocX^r|v) no one makes, neither will we attempt it, neither will we dare to
set forth [anything new] (eKGeaGoci) For the fathers taught, and in their

613

writings are preserved, what things were set forth by them, and further
than this we can say nothing.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol said: The matters
concerning Eutyches have been examined, and the most holy archbishop of
Rome has given a form (xvmo\) which we follow and to his letter we all [i.
e. those in his neighborhood] have subscribed.

The most reverend bishops cried: These are the opinions of all of us. The
expositions (eKxeGevxa) already made are quite sufficient: it is not lawful
to make any other.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, If it pleases your
reverence, let the most holy patriarch of each province, choosing one or
two of his own province and going into the midst, and together considering
the faith, make known to all what is agreed upon. So that if, as we desire,
all be of one mind, all ambiguity may be removed: But if some entertain
contrary opinions (which we do not believe to be the case) we may know
what their opinions are.

The most reverend bishops cried out, we make no new exposition in
writing. This is the law, [i. e. of the Third Synod] which teaches that what
has been set forth is sufficient. The law wills that no other exposition
should be made. Let the sayings of the Fathers remain fast.

Florentius, the most reverend bishop of Sardis, said, since it is not
possible for those who follow the teaching of the holy Synod of Nice,
which was confirmed rightly and piously at Ephesus, to draw up suddenly
a declaration of faith in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril
and Celestine, and of the letter of the most holy Leo, we therefore pray
your magnificence to give us thee, so that we may be able to arrive at the
truth of the matter with a fitting document, although so far as we are
concerned, who have subscribed the letter of the most holy Leo, nothing
further is needed.

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said, The faith has
been well defined by the 318 holy fathers and confirmed by the holy
fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now once
again by the most holy Leo: and we pray that those things which were
decreed by the 318 holy fathers, and by the most holy Leo be read.

614

The most glorious judges and great Senate said: Let there be read the
expositions (eKTeGevxa) of the 318 fathers gathered together at Nice.

Eunomius, the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia read from a book [the
Exposition of faith of the 318 fathers.]

The Exposition of faith of the Council held at Nice.

"In the consulate of Paul and Julian" etc.

"We believe in one God," etc. "But those who say," etc.

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all
believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so
taught: tiffs is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting
faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so
believes Leo, the Pope (6 7t&7toc<;) Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so
interpreted it.

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let there be read what was
set forth by the 150 holy fathers.

Aetius, the reverend deacon of Constantinople read from a book [the creed
of the 150 fathers.]

The holy faith which the 150 fathers set forth as consonant to the holy and
great Synod of Nice.

"We believe in one God," etc.

All the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of all of us: we
all so believe.

The reverend archdeacon Aetius said, There remains the letter of Cyril of
holy and blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city Alexandria,
which he wrote to Nestorius, which was approved by all the most holy
bishops assembled in the first Council at Ephesus, called to condemn the
same Nestorius, and which was confirmed by the subscription of all.
There is also another letter of the same Cyril, of blessed memory, which
he wrote to John, of blessed memory, sometime bishop of the great city of
Antioch, which likewise was confirmed. If it be so ordered, I shall read
these.

615

The most glorious judges and great senate said, Let the letters of Cyril of
blessed memory be read.

Aetius, the Archdeacon of the imperial city Constantinople read.

To the most reverend and most religious fellow-priest Nestorius, Cyril
sends greeting in the Lord.

KocToccpXiiocpoiiGi jif|V k.t.X Lat. Obloquuntur quidem, etc. This letter is
found among the acts of the Council ofEphesus.]

Likewise the same Archdeacon Aetius read [the letter of the same holy
Cyril of blessed memory to John of Antioch, on the peace].

[This letter begins, EtxppociveGcoaocv 01 oupocvoi k.t.X. and in the Latin
Laetentur caeli.]

616

THE LETTER OF CYRIL TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH

(Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 343 and col. 164;
and in Migne, Pat. Graece., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyrilli Opera, Tom. X.], col.
173. This is the letter which is often styled "the Ephesine Creed.")

Cyril to my Lord, beloved brother, and fellow minister John, greeting in
the Lord.

"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad" for the middle wall of
partition has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of
difference of opinion has been removed; Christ the Savior of us all having
awarded peace to his churches, through our being called to this by our
most devout and beloved of God kings, who are the best imitators of the
piety of their ancestors in keeping the right faith in their souls firm and
immovable, for they chiefly give their mind to the affairs of the holy
Churches, in order that they may have the noted glory forever and show
forth their most renowned kingdom, to whom also Christ himself the Lord
of powers distributes good things with plenteous hand and gives to prevail
over their enemies and grants them victory. For he does not lie in saying:
"As I live saith the Lord, them that honor me, I will honor." For when my
Lord, my most-beloved-of-God, fellow-minister and brother Paul, had
arrived in Alexandria, we were filled with gladness, and most naturally at
the coming of such a man as a mediator, who was ready to work beyond
measure that he might overcome the envy of the devil and heal our
divisions, and who by removing the offenses scattered between us, would
crown your Church and ours with harmony and peace.

Of the reason of the disagreement it is superfluous to speak. I deem it
more useful both to think and speak of things suitable to the time of peace.
We were therefore delighted at meeting with that distinguished and most
pious man, who expected perhaps to have no small struggle, persuading us
that it is necessary to form a an alliance for the peace of the Church, and to
drive away the laughter of the heterodox, and for this end to blunt the

617

goads of the stubbornness of the devil. He found us ready for this, so as
absolutely to need no labor to be bestowed upon us. For we remembered
the Savior's saying; "My peace I give unto you, my peace I leave with
you." We have been taught also to say in prayers: "O Lord our God give
us peace, for thou hast given us all things." So that if anyone should be in
the participation of the peace furnished from God, he is not lacking in any
good. That as a matter of fact, the disagreement of the Churches happened
altogether unnecessarily and in-opportunely, we now have been fully
satisfied by the document brought by my Lord, the most pious bishop
Paul, which contains an unimpeachable confession of faith, and this he
asserted to have been prepared, by your holiness and by the God-beloved
Bishops there. The document is as follows, and is set down verbatim in
this our epistle.

Concerning the Virgin Mother of God, we thus think and speak; and of the
man-net of the Incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of God, necessarily,
not by way of addition but for the sake of certainty, as we have received
from the beginning from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the
holy fathers, we will speak briefly, adding nothing whatever to the Faith
set forth by the holy Fathers in Nice. For, as we said before, it suffices for
all knowledge of piety and the refutation of all false doctrine of heretics.
But we speak, not presuming on the impossible; but with the confession
of our own weakness, excluding those who wish us to cling to those things
which transcend human consideration.

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of
God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh
consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity,
and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin
according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according
to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his
humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess
one Christ, one Son, one Lord.

According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the
holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate
and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken
from her with himself.

618

For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and
Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as per-raining to the one
person, and other flyings they divide as to the two natures, and attribute
the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the
lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity] .

These being your holy voices, and finding ourselves thinking the same
with them ("One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,") we glorified God the
Savior of all, congratulating one another that our churches and yours have
the Faith which agrees with the God-inspired Scriptures and the traditions
of our holy Fathers.

Since I learned that certain of those accustomed to find fault were
humming around like vicious wasps, and vomiting out wretched words
against me, as that I say the holy Body of Christ was brought from
heaven, and not of the holy Virgin, I thought it necessary to say a few
words concerning this to them:

O fools, and only knowing how to misrepresent, how have ye been led to
such a judgment, how have ye fallen into so foolish a sickness? For it is
necessary, it is undoubtedly necessary, to understand that almost all the
opposition to us concerning the faith, arose from our affirming that the
holy Virgin is Mother of God. But if from heaven and not from her the
holy Body of the Savior of all was born, how then is she understood to be
Mother of God? What then did she bring forth except it be true that she
brought forth the Emmanuel according to the flesh? They are to be laughed
at who babble such things about me.

For the blessed prophet Isaiah does not lie in saying "Behold the Virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is God with us." Truly also the holy Gabriel said to the
Blessed Virgin: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God.
And, behold, thou shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and
shall call his name Jesus. He shall save his people from their sins."

For when we say our Lord Jesus Christ descended from heaven, and from
above, we do not so say this as if from above and from heaven was his
Holy Flesh taken, but rather by way of following the divine Paul, who

619

distinctly declares: "the first man is of the earth, earthy; the Second Man
is the Lord from heaven."

We remember too, the Savior himself saying, "And no man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man."
Although he was born according to his flesh, as just said, of the holy
Virgin, yet God the Word came down from above and from heaven. He
"made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,"
and was called the Son of Man, yet remaining what he was, that is to say
God. For he is unchanging and unchangeable according to nature;
considered already as one with his own Flesh, he is said to have come
down from heaven.

He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and
perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the
Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown,
from which we say the ineffable union was made.

Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or
mingling or mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh. For it
is likely that certain also gossip about me as having thought or said such
things.

But I am far from any such thought as that, and I also consider them
wholly to rave who think a shadow of change could occur concerning the
Nature of the Word of God. For he remains that which he always was, and
has not been changed, nor can he ever be changed, nor is he capable of
change. For we all confess in addition to this, that the Word of God is
impassible, even though when he dispenses most wisely this mystery, he
appears to ascribe to himself the sufferings endured in his own flesh. To
the same purpose the all- wise Peter also said when he wrote of Christ as
having "suffered in the flesh," and not in the nature of his ineffable
godhead. In order that he should be believed to be the Savior of all, by an
economic appropriation to himself, as just said, he assumed the sufferings
of his own Flesh.

Like to this is the prophecy through the voice of the prophet, as from him,
"I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off
the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." Let your holiness be

620

convinced nor let anyone else be doubtful that we altogether follow the
teachings of the holy fathers, especially of our blessed and celebrated
Father Athanasius, deprecating the least departure from it.

I might have added many quotations from them also establishing my
words, but that it would have added to the length of my letter and it might
become wearisome. And we will allow the defined Faith, the symbol of the
Faith set forth by our holy Fathers who assembled some time ago at Nice,
to be shaken by no one. Nor would we permit ourselves or others, to alter
a single word of those set forth, or to add one syllable, remembering the
saying: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set," for
it was not they who spoke but the Spirit himself of God and the Father,
who proceedeth also from him, and is not alien from the Son, according to
his essence. And this the words of the holy initiators into mysteries
confirm to us. For in the Acts of the Apostles it is written: "And after
they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; but the Spirit
of Jesus suffered them not." And the divine Paul wrote: "So then they that
are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

When some of those who are accustomed to turn from the right, twist my
speech to their views, I pray your holiness not to wonder; but be well
assured that the followers of every heresy gather the occasions of their
error from the God-inspired Scriptures, corrupting in their evil minds the
things rightly said through the Holy Spirit, and drawing down upon their
own heads the unquenchable flame.

Since we have leaned that certain, after having corrupted it, have set forth
the orthodox epistle of our most distinguished Father Athanasius to the
Blessed Epictetus, so as thereby to injure many; therefore it appeared to
the brethren to be useful and necessary that we should send to your
holiness a copy of it from some correct ancient transcripts which exist
among us. Farewell.

621

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II. (continued).

(L. and C, Cone, Tom. IV., col. 343.)

And when these letters [i.e. Cyril's letter to Nestorius KocToccpXixxpouai
and his letter to John of Antioch EtxppociveaGcoaocv] had been read, the
most reverend bishops cried out: We all so believe: Pope Leo thus
believes: anathema to him who divides and to him who confounds: this is
the faith of Archbishop Leo: Leo thus believes: Leo and Anatolius so
believe: we all thus believe. As Cyril so believe we, all of us: eternal be the
memory of Cyril: as the epistles of Cyril teach such is our mind, such has
been our faith: such is our faith: this is the mind of Archbishop Leo, so he
believes, so he has written.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Let there be read also
the epistle of the most worthy Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, the
Imperial City.

Beronician, the most devout clerk of the sacred consistory, read from a
book handed him by Aetius, Archdeacon of the holy Church of
Constantinople, the encyclical or synodical letter of the most holy Leo,
the Archbishop, written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.

622

THE TOME OF ST. LEO

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 343; also Migne, Pat. Lat,
Tom. LIV. [Leo. M. Opera, Tom. L] col. 756.)

Leo [the bishop] to his [most] dear brother Flavian.

Having read your Affection's letter, the late arrival of which is matter of
surprise to us, and having gone through the record of the proceedings of
the bishops, we have now, at last, gained a clear view of the scandal which
has risen up among you, against the integrity of the faith; and what at first
seemed obscure has now been elucidated and explained. By this means
Eutyches, who seemed to be deserving of honor under the title of
Presbyter, is now shown to be exceedingly thoughtless and sadly
inexperienced, so that to him also we may apply the prophet's words,
"He refused to understand in order to act well: he meditated
unrighteousness on his bed." What, indeed, is more unrighteous than to
entertain ungodly thoughts, and not to yield to persons wiser and more
learned? But into this folly do they fall who, when hindered by some
obscurity from apprehending the truth, have recourse, not to the words of
the Prophets, not to the letters of the Apostles, nor to the authority of the
Gospels, but to themselves; and become teachers of error, just because
they have not been disciples of the truth. For what learning has he received
from the sacred pages of the New and the Old Testament, who does not so
much as understand the very beginning of the Creed? And that which, all
the world over, is uttered by the voices of all applicants for regeneration,
is still not grasped by the mind of this aged man. If, then, he knew not
what he ought to think about the Incarnation of the Word of God, and was
not willing, for the sake of obtaining the light of intelligence, to make
laborious search through the whole extent of the Holy Scriptures, he
should at least have received with heedful attention that general
Confession common to all, whereby the whole body of the faithful profess
that they "believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his
only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary." By which three clauses the engines of almost all heretics are

623

shattered. For when God is believed to be both "Almighty" and "Father,"
it is proved that the Son is everlasting together with himself, differing in
nothing from the Father, because he was born as "God from God,"
Almighty from Almighty, Coeternal from Eternal; not later in time, not
inferior in power, not unlike him in glory, not divided from him in essence,
but the same Only -begotten and Everlasting Son of an Everlasting Parent
was" born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary." This birth in time in
no way detracted from, in no way added to, that divine and everlasting
birth; but expended itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had
been deceived; so that it might both overcome death, and by its power
"destroy the devil who had the power of death." For we could not have
overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who could neither be
contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon himself our
nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was "conceived of the Holy
Ghost" within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had
conceived him, without loss of virginity. But if he (Eutyches) was not able
to obtain a true conception from this pure fountain of Christian faith
because by his own blindness he had darkened for himself the brightness
of a truth so clear, he should have submitted himself to the Evangelist' s
teaching; and after reading what Matthew says, "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham," he
should also have sought instruction from the Apostle's preaching; and
after reading in the Epistle to the Romans, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called an Apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had
promised before by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his
Son, who was made unto him of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
he should have bestowed some devout study on the pages of the Prophets;
and finding that God's promise said to Abraham, "in thy seed shall all
nations be blessed," in order to avoid all doubt as to the proper meaning of
this "seed," he should have at-tended to the Apostle's words, "To
Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not, 'and to
seeds,' as in the case of many, but as in the case of one, 'and to thy seed,'
which is Christ." He should also have apprehended with his inward ear the
declaration of Isaiah, "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with
us;" and should have read with faith the words of the same prophet,
"Unto us a Child has been born, unto us a Son has been given, whose

624

power is on his shoulder; and they shall call his name Angel of great
counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, Strong God, Prince of Peace, Father of the
age to come." And he should not have spoken idly to the effect that the
Word was in such a sense made flesh, that the Christ who was brought
forth from the Virgin's womb had the form of a man, and had not a body
really derived from his Mother's body. Possibly his reason for thinking
that our Lord Jesus Christ was not of our nature was this — that the
Angel who was sent to the blessed and ever Virgin Mary said, "The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of rite Highest shall
overshadow thee, and therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God;" as if, because the Virgin's conception
was caused by a divine act, therefore the flesh of him whom she conceived
was not of the nature of her who conceived him. But we are not to
understand that "generation," peerlessly wonderful, and wonderfully
peerless, in such a sense as that the newness of the mode of production
did away with the proper character of the kind. For it was the Holy Ghost
who gave fecundity to the Virgin, but it was from a body that a real body
was derived; and "when Wisdom was building herself a house," the "Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, that is, in that flesh which he
assumed from a human being, and which he animated with the spirit of
rational life. Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and
substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was
assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in
order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to
the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the
same "Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus," might
from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable.
Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God,
whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By "ours" we mean what
the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to
restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived,
admitted, there was not a trace in the Savior; and the fact that he took on
himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a par-taker in our
transgressions. He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement
of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because
that "emptying of himself," whereby the Invisible made himself visible,
and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was

625

a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the
same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the
form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character
without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a
servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God. For
since the devil was glorying in the fact that man, deceived by his craft, was
bereft of divine gifts and, being stripped of his endowment of immortality,
had come under the grievous sentence of death, and that he himself, amid
'his miseries, had found a sort of consolation in having a transgressor as
his companion, and that God, according to the requirements of the
principle of justice, had changed his own resolution in regard to man,
whom he had created in so high a position of honor; there was need of a
dispensation of secret counsel, in order that the unchangeable God, whose
will could not be deprived of its own benignity, should fulfill by a more
secret mystery his original plan of loving kindness toward us, and that
man, who had been led into fault by the wicked subtlety of the devil,
should not perish contrary to God's purpose. Accordingly, the Son of
God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory
of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new
mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is
invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space,
willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in
time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be
overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible
God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be
subjected to the laws of death. And born by a new mode of birth; because
inviolate virginity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of
his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord's mother was nature, not fault;
nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as
born of a Virgin's womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the
selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this
union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet
together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so
"Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does
the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that
is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what
belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other

626

succumbs' to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality
with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our
kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of
God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as "in the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Man,
inasmuch as "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." God,
inasmuch as "all things were made by him, and without him nothing was
made." Man, inasmuch as he was "made of a woman, made under the law."
The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature; the Virgin's
child-bearing is an indication of Divine power. The infancy of the Babe is
exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the
Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously
designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi
rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. Now when he came to the
baptism of John his forerunner, lest the fact that the Godhead was covered
with a veil of flesh should be concealed, the voice of the Father spake in
thunder from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased." Accordingly, he who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety,
is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to
thirst, to be weary, and to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy five
thousand men with five loaves, and give to the Samaritan woman that
living water, to draw which can secure him that drinks of it from ever
thirsting again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that sink not,
and by rebuking the storm to bring down the "uplifted waves," is
unquestionably Divine. As then — to pass by many points — it does not
belong to the same nature to weep with feelings of pity over a dead friend
and, after the mass of stone had been removed from the grave where he had
lain four days, by a voice of command to raise him up to life again; or to
hang on the wood, and to make all the elements tremble after daylight had
been turned into night; or to be transfixed with nails, and to open the gates
of paradise to the faith of the robber; so it does not belong to the same
nature to say, "I and the Father are one," and to say, "the Father is greater
than I." For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God
and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and
that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to
us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the
Father he has equal Godhead with the Father. Accordingly, on account of

627

this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the
natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came down from
heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom
he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been
crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual
Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with
the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the
very Creed, confess that" the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and
buried," according to that saying of the Apostle, "for if they had known it,
they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty." But when our Lord
and Savior himself was by his questions instructing the faith of the
disciples, he said, "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" And
when they had mentioned various opinions held by others, he said, "But
whom say ye that I am?" that is, "I who am Son of Man, and whom you
see in the form of a servant, and in reality of flesh, whom say ye that I
am?" Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to
benefit all nations by his confession, said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God." Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed
by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which
belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from
the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the
Christ; because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not
profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord
Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God.
But after the resurrection of the Lord — which was in truth the
resurrection of a real body, for no other person was raised again than he
who had been crucified and had died — what else was accomplished during
that interval of forty days than to make our faith entire and clear of all
darkness? For while he conversed with his disciples, and dwelt with them,
and ate with them, and allowed himself to be handled with careful and
inquisitive touch by those who were under the influence of doubt, for this
end he came in to the disciples when the doors were shut, and by his
breath gave them the Holy Ghost, and opened the secrets of Holy
Scripture after bestowing on them the light of intelligence, and again in his
selfsame person showed to them the wound in the side, the prints of the
nails, and all the flesh tokens of the Passion, saying, "Behold my hands
and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not

628

flesh and bones, as ye see me have:" that the properties of the Divine and
the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without causing
a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what
the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh.
On which mystery of the faith this Eutyches must be regarded as
unhappily having no hold, who does not recognize our nature to exist in
the Only -begotten Son of God, either by way of the lowliness of
mortality, or of the glory of resurrection. Nor has he been overawed by the
declaration of the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John, saying, "Every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God;
and every spirit which dissolveth Jesus is not of God, and this is
Antichrist." Now what is to dissolve Jesus, but to separate the human
nature from him, and to make void by shameless inventions that mystery
by which alone we have been saved? Moreover, being in the dark as to the
nature of Christ's body, he must needs be involved in the like senseless
blindness with regard to his Passion also. For if he does not think the
Lord's crucifixion to be unreal, and does not doubt that he really accepted
suffering, even unto death, for the sake of the world's salvation; as he
believes in his death, let him acknowledge his flesh also, and not doubt that
he whom he recognizes as having been capable of suffering is also Man
with a body like ours; since to deny his true flesh is also to deny his
bodily sufferings. If then he accepts the Christian faith, and does not turn
away his ear from the preaching of the Gospel, let him see what nature it
was that was transfixed with nails and hung on the wood of the cross; and
let him understand whence it was that, after the side of the Crucified had
been pierced by the soldier' s spear, blood and water flowed out, that the
Church of God might be refreshed both with a Laver and with a Cup. Let
him listen also to the blessed Apostle Peter when he declares, that
"sanctification by the Spirit" takes place through the "sprinkling of the
blood of Christ," and let him not give a mere cursory reading to the words
of the same Apostle, "Knowing that ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain way of life received
by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ
as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot." Let him also not resist
the testimony of Blessed John the Apostle, "And the blood of Jesus the
Son of God cleanseth us from all sin." And again, "This is the victory
which overcometh the world, even our faith;" and, "who is he that

629

overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not in water
only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness — the
Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one." That is, the Spirit
of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism;
which three things are one, and remain undivided, and not one of them is
disjoined from connection with the others; because the Catholic Church
lives and advances by this faith, that Christ Jesus we should believe
neither manhood to exist without true Godhead, nor Godhead without true
manhood. But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of
him, answered, "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the
union, but after the union I confess one nature;" I am astonished that so
absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a
censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely
foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had
been heard which could give offense: seeing that it is as impious to say
that the Only -begotten Son of God was of two natures before the
Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh,
there has been in him one nature only. But lest Eutyches should think that
what he said was correct, or was tolerable, because it was not confuted by
any assertion of yours, we exhort your earnest solicitude, dearly beloved
brother, to see that, if by God's merciful inspiration the case is brought to
a satisfactory issue, the inconsiderate and inexperienced man be cleansed
also from this pestilent notion of his; seeing that, as the record of the
proceedings has clearly shown, he had fairly begun to abandon his own
opinion when on being driven into a corner by authoritative words of
yours, he professed himself i ready to say what he had not said before,
and to give his adhesion to that faith from which he had previously stood
aloof. But when he would not consent to anathematize the impious dogma
you understood, brother, that he continued in his own misbelief, and
deserved to receive sentence of condemnation. For which if he grieves
sincerely and to good purpose, and understands, even though too late, how
properly the Episcopal authority has been put in motion, or if, in order to
make full satisfaction, he shall condemn viva voce, and under his own
hand, all that he has held amiss, no compassion, to whatever extent, which
can be shown him when he has been set right, will be worthy of blame, for

630

our Lord, the true and good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep,
and who came to save men's souls and not to destroy them, wills us to
imitate his own loving kindness; so that justice should indeed constrain
those who sin, but mercy should not reject those who are converted. For
then indeed is the true faith defended with the best results, when a false
opinion is condemned even by those who have followed it. But in order
that the whole matter may be piously and faithfully carried out, we have
appointed our brethren, Julius, Bishop, and Reatus, Presbyter (of the title
of St. Clement) and also my son Hilarus, Deacon, to represent us; and
with them we have associated Dulcitius, our Notary, of whose fidelity we
have had good proof: trusting that the Divine assistance will be with you,
so that he who has gone astray may be saved by condemning his own
unsound opinion. May God keep you in good health, dearly beloved
brother. Given on the Ides of June, in the Consulate of the illustrious men,
Asterius and Protogenes.

[Next was read a long catena of quotations from the Fathers sustaining the
teaching of the Tome. (L. and C, Cone, Tom. IV., cols. 357-368.)]

631

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II. (continued).

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried
out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we
all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus
believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles.
Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the
memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him
who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are
orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these
things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are
the things Dioscorus hid away.

[Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers
were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and
some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out.
This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session
was dissolved by the judges. (Col. 371.)]

SESSION III.

[The imperial representatives do not seem to have been present, and after
Aetius the Archdeacon of Constantinople had opened the Session,]

Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybaeum, in the province of Silicia, and
holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of
old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows: It is well

632

known to this beloved of God synod, that divine letters were sent to the
blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the
holy synod. But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general
necessity of the time seemed to permit it, our littleness in the place of
himself he toc ir\c, 6cyia<; cruvoSoi) eTtexpeye and therefore it is necessary
that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by
our interference (SiocXocXi&c;) [The Latin reads where I have placed the
Greek of the ordinary text, thus, "commanded our littleness to preside in
his place over this holy council."] Therefore let the book presented by our
most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and
read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries,
Aetius.

And Aetius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, took the book
and read as follows.

[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each
addressed to "The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop
and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod
assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc.;" The first two by deacons of Alexandria,
the third by a quondam presbyter of the diocese, and the fourth by a
layman also of Alexandria. After this Dioscorus was again summoned and,
as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was
communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts. (L. and C., Cone,
Tom IV., col. 418.) The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part
one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech
occurs the following (Col. 426:)]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and
elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod
together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is
the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the
orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated
from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great
synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

633

[The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favor of the deposition of
Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice
summoned.]

And when all the most holy bishops had spoken on the subject, they
signed this which follows.

THE CONDEMNATION SENT BY THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL
SYNOD TO DIOSCORUS.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God
according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God
emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the
martyr of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you
were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical
order (Geauxn)) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your
disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and
ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have
been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three
times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did
not come.

634

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION IV.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 469.)

The most magnificent and glorious judges and the great Senate said:

Let the reverend council now declare what seems good concerning the
faith, since those things which have already been disposed of have been
made manifest. Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, and
Boniface the most reverend presbyter, legates of the Apostolic See
through that most reverend man, bishop Paschasinus said: As the holy and
blessed and Ecumenical Synod holds fast and follows the rule of faith
(fidei regulam in the Latin Acts) which was set forth by the fathers at
Nice, it also confirms the faith set forth by the Synod of 150 fathers
gathered at Constantinople at the bidding of the great Theodosius of
blessed memory. Moreover the exposition of their faith, of the illustrious
Cyril of blessed memory set forth at the Council of Ephesus (in which
Nestorius was condemned) is received. And in the third place the writings
of that blessed man, Leo, Archbishop of all the churches, who condemned
the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shew what the true faith is.
Likewise the holy Synod holds this faith, this it follows — nothing further
can it add nor can it take aught away.

When this had been translated into Greek by Beronician, the devout
secretary of the divine consistory, the most reverend bishops tried out: So
we all believe, so we were baptized, so we baptize, so we have believed,
so we now believe.

The most glorious judges and the great senate said: Since we see that the
Holy Gospels have been placed alongside of your holiness, let each one of
the bishops here assembled declare whether the epistle of most blessed
archbishop Leo is in accordance with the exposition of the 318 fathers

635

assembled at Nice and with the decrees of the 150 fathers afterwards
assembled in the royal city.

[To this question the bishops answered one by one, until 161 separate
opinions had been given, when the rest of the bishops were asked by the
imperial judges to give their votes in a body (col. 508). ]

All the most reverend bishops cried out: We all acquiesce, we all believe
thus; we are all of the same mind. So are we minded, so we believe, etc.,
etc.

SESSION V.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 555.)

Paschasinus and Lucentius the most reverend bishops and Boniface a
presbyter, vicars of the Apostolic See of Rome, said: If they do not agree
to the letter of that apostolic and blessed man, Pope Leo, give directions
that we be given our letters of dismission, and let a synod be held there
[i.e. in the West].

[A long debate then followed as to whether the decree drawn up and
presented should be accepted. This seems to have been the mind of most of
the bishops. At last the commissioners proposed a committee of twenty-two
to meet with them and report to the council, and the Emperor imposed this
with the threat that otherwise they all should be sent home and a new
council called in the West. Even this did not make them yield (col. 560.)]

The most reverend bishops cried out: Many years to the Emperor! Either
let the definition [i.e. the one presented at this session] stand or we go.
Many years to the Emperor!

Cecropius, the most reverend bishop of Sebastopol, said: We ask that the
definition be read again and that those who dissent from it, and will not
sign, may go about their business; for we give our consent to these things
which have been so beautifully drafted, and make no criticisms.

636

The most blessed bishops of Illyria said: Let those who contradict be
made manifest. Those who contradict are Nestorians. Those who
contradict, let them go to Rome.

The most magnificent and most glorious judges said: Dioscorus
acknowledged that he accepted the expression "of two natures," but not
that there were two natures. But the most holy archbishop Leo says that
there are two natures in Christ unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly
united in the one only-begotten Son our Savior. Which would you follow,
the most holy Leo or Dioscorus?

The most reverend bishops cried out: We believe as Leo. Those who
contradict are Eutychians. Leo hath rightly expounded the faith.

The most magnificent and glorious judges said: Add then to the definition,
according to the judgment of our most holy father Leo, that there are two
natures in Christ united unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly.

[The Committee then sat in the oratory of the most holy martyr Euphemis
and afterwards reported a definition of faith which while teaching the same
doctrine was not the Tome of Leo (col. 562).]

637

THE DEFINITION OF FAITH OF THE COUNCIL OF

CHALCEDON

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 562.)

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God and
the command of our most religious and Christian Emperors, Marcian and
Valentinan, Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the Bithynian
Province, in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has
decreed as follows:

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of
the Faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his
neighbor concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of
the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said, "My peace I leave
with you, my peace I give unto you." But, since the evil one does not
desist from sowing tares among the seeds of godliness, but ever invents
some new device against the truth; therefore the Lord, providing, as he
ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and
zealous Sovereign, and has called together unto him from all parts the chief
rulers of the priesthood; so that, the grace of Christ our common Lord
inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of
Christ, and feed them with the tender leaves of truth. And this have we
done with one unanimous consent, driving away erroneous doctrines and
renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all men the Creed
of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and to their number adding, as their
peers, the Fathers who have received the same summary of religion. Such
are the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who afterwards assembled in
the great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing
the order and every form relating to the faith, which was observed by the
holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and
Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders, we do declare that
the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the Three Hundred
and Eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at Nice in the reign of

638

Constantine of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent: and that those things
shall be of force also,

NOTES

ANATOLIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE

(Ep. to St. Leo. Migne, Pat. Lat, Tom. UV. [Leo. M., Opera, Tom. I.] col.
978.)

Since after judgment had been delivered concerning him, there was need
that all should agree in the right faith (for which purpose the most pious
emperor had with the greatest pains assembled the holy Synod) with
prayer and tears, your holiness being present with us in spirit and
co-operating with us through those most God-beloved men whom you had
sent to us, having as our protector the most holy and most comely Martyr
Euphemia, we gave ourselves up entirely to this salutary work, all other
matters being laid aside. And when the crisis demanded that all the most
holy bishops gathered together should set forth an unanimous definition
(auuxpcovov opov) for the explanation and clearer understanding of our
confession of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord God was found appearing to
them that sought him not, and even to them that asked not for him. And
although some from the beginning contentiously made opposition, he
shewed forth nevertheless his truth and so disposed flyings that an
unanimous and uncontradicted writing was published by us all, which
confirmed the souls of the stable, and inviting to the way of truth all who
had declined therefrom. And when we had subscribed with unanimous
consent, the chart, we all with one consent, that is our whole synod,
entered the martyry of the most holy and triumphant martyr Euphemia,
and when at the prayer of our most pious and beloved of Christ Emperor
Marcian, and of our most pious and in all respects faithful Empress, our
daughter and Augusta Pulcheria, with joy, and hilarity we placed upon the
holy altar the decision which we had written for the confirmation of the

639

faith of our fathers in accordance with that holy letter you sent us; and
then handed it to their piety, that they might receive it as they had asked
for it. And when they had received it they gave glory with us to Christ the
Lord, who had driven away the darkness of wicked opinion, and had
illustrated with the greatest unanimity the word of truth, etc. which were
decreed by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople, for
the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up, and for the
confirmation of the same Catholic and Apostolic Faith of ours.

The Creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nice.

We believe in one God, etc.

Item, the Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were
assembled at Constantinople.

We believe in one God, etc.

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect
knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine]
concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the Incarnation of
the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But, forasmuch as persons
undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their
individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to
corrupt the mystery of the Lord's incarnation for us and refusing [to use]
the name Mother of God (6eoxoKO<;)in reference to the Virgin, while
others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the
nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the
divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering;
therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to
exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is
unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith
of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate.
And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms
the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by
the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial
City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were
introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in
order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy

640

Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty. And,
From this passage can easily be understood the very obscure passage in
the letter of the Council to Leo, where it says that the definition was
delivered by St. Euphemia as her own confession of faith. Vide note of the
Ballerini on this epistle of Anatolius.

HEFELE

(Hist, of the Councils. Vol. III., p. 348.)

The present Greek text has ek Sijo cp-uoecov while the old Latin
translation has, in duabus naturis. After what had been repeatedly said in
this session on the difference between "in two natures" and "of two
natures," and in opposition to the latter formula, there can be no doubt
whatever that the old Latin translator had the more accurate text before
him, and that it was originally ev Sijo (puaeaiv This, however, is not
mere supposition, but is expressly testified by antiquity: by the famous
Abbot Euthymius of Palestine, a contemporary of the Council of
Chalcedon, of whose disciples several were present as bishops at our
Council (cf. Baron, ad. ann. 451, n. 152 sq.). We still have a judgment of
his which he gave respecting the decree of Chalcedon concerning the faith,
and in which he repeats the leading doctrine in the words of the Synod
itself. At our passage he remarks: ev 8i)o (pvaeai yvcopi^eaGoci
ou-oXoyei xbv evoc Xpiaxbv k.tI. The fragment of his writings on the
subject is found in the Vita S. Euthymii Abbatis, written by his pupil
Cyril in the Analecta Groeca of the monks of St. Maur, t. i., p. 57, printed
in Mansi, t. vii., p. 774 sq. The second ancient witness is Severus, from
A.D. 513 Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, who represents it as a great
reproach and an unpardonable offense in the fathers of Chalcedon that
they had declared: ev Sijo qvuaeaiv a8iocipexoi<; yvcopi^eaGou xov
Xpiaxbv (see the Sententioe Seven in Mansi, t. vii., p. 839). Somewhat
more than a hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, Evagrius copied
its decree concerning the faith in extenso into his Church History (lib. ii.,
4), and, in fact, with the words: ev Sijo (puaeaiv ocai>y%TJXco<; k.t.X. (ed.
Mog., p. 294). In the conference on religion held between the Severians
and the orthodox at Constantinople, A.D. 553, the former reproached the

641

Synod of Chalcedon with having put in duabus naturis, instead of ex
duabus naturis, as Cyril and the old fathers had taught (Mansi, t. viii., p.
892; Hardouin, t. ii., p. 1162). Leontius of Byzantium maintains quite on
account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the
dispensation [i.e. the Incarnation] and who shamelessly pretend that he
who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the
synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria,
addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the
refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of
those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol.
And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to
these the letter of the President of the great and old Rome, the most
blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop
Flavian of blessed memory, for the removal of the false doctrines of
Eutyches, judging them to be agreeable to the confession of the great Peter,
and as it were a common pillar against misbelievers. For it opposes those
who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a Duad of Sons; it
repels from the sacred assembly those who dare to say that the Godhead
of the Only Begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine a
mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ; it drives away those
who fancy his form of a servant is of an heavenly or some substance other
than that which was taken of us, and it anathematizes those who foolishly
talk of two natures of our Lord before the union, conceiving that after the
union there was only one.

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God]
and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person],
that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very
man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial
with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as
touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted;
begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in
these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of
the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one
and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be
confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly,

642

distinctly, in the year 610, in his work De Sectis, that the Synod taught
evoc Xpiaxbv ev Stjo cpijaeaiv aavyxoxcoq K.rc.X.

It is clear that if any doubt had then existed as to the correct reading,
Leontius could not have opposed the Monophysites with such certainty.
The passage adduced by him is Actio iv., c. 7., in Galland. Bibliotheca PP.,
t. xii., p. 633. Gieseler (Kirchengesch L, S. 465), and after him Hahn
(Biblioth. der Symbole, S. 118, note 6), cites incorrectly the fourth instead
of the fifth Actio. Perhaps neither of them had consulted the passage
itself. No less weight is to be attached to the fact that all the Latin
translations, that of Rusticus and those before him, have in duabus
naturis; and that the Lateran Synod, A.D. 649, had the same reading in
their Acts (Hardouin, t. iii., p. 835). Pope Agatho, also, in his letter to the
Emperor Constans II., which was read in the sixth Ecumenical Synod,
adduced the creed of Chalcedon with the words in duabus naturis (in the
Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council, Actio iv.; in Mansi, t. xi., p. 256;
Hardouin, t. iii., p. 1091). In consequence of this, most scholars of recent
times, e.g., Tillemont, Walch (Bibloth. symbol veter., p. 106), Hahn (1. c),
Gieseler (1. c), Neander (Abthl ii., 2 of Bd. iv., S. 988), have declared ev
Stjo (piSaeoiv to be the original and correct reading. Neander adds: "The
whole process of the transactions of the Council shows this (that ev Stjo
is the correct reading). Evidently the earlier creed, which was more
favorable to the Egyptian doctrine, contained the eic SiSo cpiSaecov and the
favor shown to the other party came out chiefly in the change of the eic
into ev The expression eic SiSo cpiSoecov besides, does not fit the place,
the verb yvcopi^6(j,evov points rather to the original ev The ev Stjo
cpiSoeaiv or eic Stjo cp-uaecov was the turning-point of the whole
controversy between Monophysitism and Dyophysitism." Cf., on the
other side, Baur, Trinitatslehre, Bd. L, S. 820, and Dorner (Lehre 5:der
Person Christi, Thl. ii., S. 129), where it is maintained that eic is the
correct and original reading, but that it was from the beginning purposely
altered by the Westerns into in; moreover, that eic fits better than ev with
yvcopi^6(xevov, and therefore that it had been allowed as a concession to
the Monophysites. The meaning, moreover, they say, of eic and <ev is
essentially the same, and the one and the other alike excluded
Monophysitism. inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of
natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property

643

of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and
subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the
same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the
Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus
Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest
accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one
shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (exepav7tiaTiv) nor to
write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But
such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to
teach or to deliver a different Creed (exepov cttju-PoXov) to as wish to be
converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any
heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the
Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they
be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

After the reading of the definition, all the most religious Bishops cried out:
This is the faith of the fathers: let the metropolitans forthwith subscribe it:
let them forthwith, in the presence of the judges, subscribe it: let that
which has been well defined have no delay: this is the faith of the
Apostles: by this we all stand: thus we all believe.

644

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION VI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 611.)

[The Emperor was present in person and addressed the Council and
afterwards suggested legislation under three heads, the drafts for which
were read.]

After this reading, the capitulas were handed by our most sacred and pious
prince to the most beloved of God Anatolius, archbishop of royal
Constantinople, which is New Rome, and all the most God-beloved
bishops cried out: Many years to our Emperor and Empress, the pious,
the Christian. May Christ whom thou servest keep thee. These things are
worthy of the faith. To the Priest, the Emperor. Thou hast straightened
out the churches, victor of thine enemies, teacher of the faith. Many years
to the pious Empress, the lover of Christ. Many years to her that is
orthodox. May God save your kingdom. Ye have put down the heretics,
ye have kept the faith. May hatred be far removed from your empire, and
may your kingdom endure for ever!

Our most sacred and pious prince said to the holy synod: To the honor of
the holy martyr Euphemia, and of your holiness, we decree that the city of
Chalcedon, in which the synod of the holy faith has been held, shall have
the honors of a metropolis, in name only giving it this honor, the proper
dignity of the city of Nicomedia being preserved.

All cried out, etc., etc.

645

DECREE ON THE JURISDICTION OF JERUSALEM

AND ANTIOCH

SESSION VII.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 618.)

The most magnificent and glorious judges said:... The arrangement arrived
at through the agreement of the most holy Maximus, the bishop of the city
of Antioch, and of the most holy Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the
attestation of each of them declares, shall remain firm for ever, through our
decree and the sentence of the holy synod; to wit, that the most holy
bishop Maximus, or rather the most holy church of Antioch, shall have
under its own jurisdiction the two Phoenicias and Arabia; but the most
holy Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, or rather the most holy Church which
is under him, shall have under his own power the three Palestines, all
imperial pragmatics and letters and penalties being done away according to
the bidding of our most sacred and pious prince.

NOTE.

The Ballerini, in their notes to the Works of St. Leo (Migne, Pat. Lat., LV.,
col. 733 et seqq.), cite fragments of the Acts of this council, which if they
can be trusted, shew that this matter of the rights of Antioch and
Jerusalem was treated of again at a subsequent session (on Oct. 31) and
determined in the same fashion. These fragments have generally been
received as genuine, and have been inserted by Mansi (Toni. vii., 722 C.)
in his Concilia.

646

The notes of the Ballerini may also be read with profit, in the same volume
of Migne's Latin Patrology, col. 737 et seq.

647

THE DECREE WITH REGARD TO THE BISHOP OF

EPHESUS

SESSION XII.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 706.)

The most glorious judges said: Since the proposition of the God-beloved
archbishop of royal Constantinople, Anatolius, and of the most reverend
bishop Paschasinus, holding the place of Leo, the most God-beloved
archbishop of old Rome, which orders that because both of them [i.e.,
Bassianus and Stephen] acted uncanonically, neither of them should rule,
nor be called bishop of the most holy church off Ephesus, and since the
whole holy synod taught that uncanonically they had performed these
ordinations, and had agreed with the speeches of the most reverend
bishops; the most reverend Bassianus and the most reverend Stephen will
be removed from the holy church of Ephesus; but they shall enjoy the
episcopal dignity, and from the revenues of the before-mentioned most
holy church, for their nourishment and consolation, they shall receive each
year two hundred gold pieces; and another bishop shall be ordained
according to the canons for the most holy church.

And the whole holy synod cried out: This is a just sentence. This is a
pious scheme. These things are fair to look upon.

The most reverend bishop Bassianus said: Pray give order that what was
stolen from me be restored.

The most glorious judges said: If anything belonging to the most reverend
bishop Bassianus personally has been taken from him, either by the most
reverend bishop Stephen, or by any other persons whatsoever, this shall
be restored, after judicial proof, by them who took it away or caused it to
be taken.

648

DECREE WITH REGARD TO NICOMEDIA

SESSION XIII.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 715.)

The most glorious judges said [after the reading of the imperial letters was
finished]: These divine letters say nothing whatever with regard to the
episcopate, but both refer to honor belonging to metropolitan cities. But
the sacred letters of Valentinian and Valens of divine memory, which then
bestowed metropolitan rights upon the city of Nice, carefully provided
that nothing should be taken away from other cities. And the canon of the
holy fathers decreed that there should be one metropolis in each province.
What therefore is the pleasure of the holy synod in this matter?

The holy synod cried out: Let the canons be kept. Let the canons be
sufficient.

Atticus the most reverend bishop of old Nicepolis in Epirus said: The
canon thus defines, that a metropolitan should have jurisdiction in each
province, and he should constitute all the bishops who are in that
province. And this is the meaning of the canon. Now the bishop of
Nicomedia, since from the beginning this was a metropolis, ought to ordain
all the bishops who are in that province.

The holy synod said: This is what we all wish, this we all pray for, let this
everywhere be observed, this is pleasing to all of us.

John, Constantine, Patrick [Peter] and the rest of the most reverend
bishops of the Pentic diocese [through John who was one of them] said:
The canons recognize the one more ancient as the metropolitan. And it is
manifest that the most religious bishop of Nicemedia has the right of the
ordination, and since the laws (as your magnificence has seen) have
honored Nice with the name only of metropolis, and so made its bishop
superior to the rest of the bishops of the province in honor only.

649

The holy synod said: They have taught in accordance with the canons,
beautifully have they taught. We all say the same things.

[Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, then put in a plea to save the rights
of the throne of the royal city.]

The most glorious judges said: The most reverend the bishop of Nicomedia
shall have the authority of metropolitan over the churches of the province
of Bithynia, and Nice shall have the honor only of Metropolitical rank,
submitting itself according to the example of the other bishops of the
province of Nicomedia. For such is the pleasure of the Holy Synod.

650

THE XXX CANONS OF THE HOLY AND FOURTH
SYNODS, OF CHALCEDON

CANON I

We have judged it fight that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every
synod even until now, should remain in force.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.

The canons of every Synod of the holy Fathers shall be observed.

HEFELE.

Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the
canons of several synods, which were held previously, were gathered into
one collection and provided with continuous numbers, and such a
collection of canons, as we have seen, lay before the Synod of Chalcedon.
As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the
collection, e.g. those of Neocaesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were
certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of
doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation
of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to
the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It
is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel,
cap.j.; "We honor the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do

651

Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the
laws."

It seems quite impossible to determine just what councils are included in
this list, the Council in Trullo has entirely removed this ambiguity in its
second canon.

This canon is found in the Corpus, Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXV., Qusest. 1, can. xiv.

652

CANON II

If any Bishop should ordain for money, and put to sale a grace which
cannot be sold, and for money ordain a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or
presbyters, or deacons, or any other of those who are counted among the
clergy; or if through lust of gain he should nominate for money a steward,
or advocate, or prosmonarius, or any one whatever who is on the roll of
the Church, let him who is convicted of this forfeit his own rank; and let
him who is ordained be nothing profited by the purchased ordination or
promotion; but let him be removed from the dignity or charge he has
obtained for money. And if any one should be found negotiating such
shameful and unlawful transactions, let him also, if he is a clergyman, be
deposed from his rank, and if he is a layman or monk, let him be
anathematized.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

Whoso buys or sells an ordination, down to a Prosmonarius, shall be in
danger of losing his grade. Such shall also be the case with go-betweens, if
they be clerics they shall be cut off from their rank, if laymen or monks,
they shall be anathematized.

BRIGHT

A great scandal in the "Asian diocese" had led to St. Chrysostom's
intervention. Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus, was charged, with "making it
a rule to sell ordinations of bishops at rates proportionate to the value of

653

their sees" (Palladius, Dial, de vita Chrysost, p. 50). Chrysostom held a
synod at Ephesus, at which six bishops were deposed for having obtained
their sees in this manner. Isidore of Pelasium repeatedly remonstrated with
his bishop Eusebius on the heinousness of "selling the gift" of ordinations
(Epist. I., 26, 30, 37); and names Zosimus, a priest, and Maron, a deacon,
as thus ordained (ib. 1 1 1,1 19). A few years before the council, a court of
three bishops sat at Berytus to hear charges brought against Ibas, bishop
of Edessa, by clerics of his diocese. The third charge was thus curtly
worded: "Moreover he receives for laying on hands" (Mansi, 7:224). The
xxvijth Trullan canon repeated this canon of Chalcedon against persons
ordained for money, doubtless in view of such a state of things as Gregory
the Great had heard of nearly a century earlier, "that in the Eastern
Churches no one comes to holy order except by the payment of
premiums" (Epist. 11:46, to the bishop of Jerusalem; compare Evagrius's
assertion that Justin II. openly sold bishoprics, V. 1). It is easy to
understand how the scruples of ecclesiastics could be abated by the
courtly fashion of calling bribes "eulogiae" (Fleury, XXVI, 20), just as the
six prelates above referred to had regarded their payments as an equivalent
for that "making over of property to the Curia," which was required by a
law of 399 (God. Theod., 12:1, 163, see notes in Transl. of Fleury, 1:163,
ij. 16).

The IkSikoi;, "defensor," was an official Advocate or counsel for the
Church. The legal force of the term "defensor" is indicated by a law of
Valentinian I. "Nee idem in codera negotio defensor sit et quaesitor" (God.
Theod., 2:10, 2). In the East the office was held by ecclesiastics; thus,
John, presbyter and "advocate" was employed, at the Council of
Constantinople in 448, to summon Eutyches (Mansi, 7:697). About 496,
Paul the "Advocate" of Constantinople saved his archbishop from the
sword of a murderer at the cost of his own life (Theodor., Lect. 2: 1 1). In
the list of the functionaries of St. Sophia, given by Goat in his Euchologion
(p. 270), the Protecdicos is described as adjudicating, with twelve
assessors, in smaller causes, on which he afterwards reports to the bishop.
In Africa, on the other hand, from A. D. 407 (see God. Theod., 16:2, 38),
the office was held by barristers, in accordance with a request of the
African bishops (God. Afric, 97; Mansi, iii., 802), who, six years earlier,
had asked for "defensores," with special reference to the oppression of the

654

poor by the rich (God. Afric, 75; Mansi, 3:778, 970). The "defensores"
mentioned by Gregory the Great had primarily to take care of the poor
(Epist., 5:29), and of the church property (ib, 1:36), but also to be
advocates of injured clerics (ib., 9:64) and act as assessors (ib., 10:1), etc.

The next office is that of the Prosmonarius or, according to a various
reading adopted by many (e.g. Justellus, Hervetus, Beveridge, Bingham),
the Paramonarius. Opinions differ as to the functions intended. Isidore
gives simply "paramonarius:" Dionysius (see Justellus, Biblioth., L, 134)
omits the word; but in the "interpretario Dionysii," as given in the
Concilia, freedom has been taken to insert "vel mansionarium" in a
parenthesis (vii. 373; see Beveridge, in loc). Mansionarius is a literal
rendering; but what was the function of a mansionarius? In Gregory the
Great's time he was a sacristan who had the duty of lighting the church
(Dial., 1:5); and "ostiarium" in the Prisca implies the same idea. Tillemont,
without deciding between the two Greek readings, thinks that the person
intended had "some charge of what pertained to the church itself, perhaps
like our present bedells" (xv. 694). So Fleury renders, "concierge" (xxviij.
29); and Newman, reading "paramonarion," takes a like view (note in
Transl. of Fleury, vol. iii., p. 392). But Justellus (i. 91) derives
"paramonarius" from \iovr\ "mansio," a halting-place, so that the sense
would be a manager of one of the church's farms, a "villicus," or, as
Bingham expresses it, "a bailiff (iii. 3, 1). Beveridge agrees with Justellus,
except in giving to \io\r\ the sense of "monastery" (compare the use of
u.ovr| in Athan., Apol. c. Arion, 67, where Valesius understands it as "a
station" on a road, but others as "a monastery," see Historical Writings of
St. Athanasius, Introd., p. xliv.). Bingham also prefers this interpretation.
Suitor takes it as required by "paramonarios" which he treats as the true
reading: "prosmonarios" he thinks would have the sense of "sacristan."

HEFELE

According to Van Espen, however, who here supports himself upon Du
Cange, by "prosmonarios" or "mansionarius," in the same way as by
"oiconomos," a steward of church property was to be understood.

655

The canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa I., Quaest. L, can. viii.

656

CANON III

It has come to [the knowledge of] the holy Synod that certain of those
who are enrolled among the clergy have, through lust of gain, become hirers
of other men's possessions, and make contracts pertaining to secular
affairs, lightly esteeming the service of God, and slip into the houses of
secular persons, whose property they undertake through covetousness to
manage. Wherefore the great and holy Synod decrees that henceforth no
bishop, clergyman, nor monk shall hire possessions, or engage in business,
or occupy himself in worldly engagements, unless he shall be called by the
law to the guardianship of minors, from which there is no escape; or unless
the bishop of the city shall commit to him the care of ecclesiastical
business, or of unprovided orphans or widows and of persons who stand
especially in need of the Church's help, through the fear of God. And if
any one shall hereafter transgress these decrees, he shall be subjected to
ecclesiastical penalties.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

Those who assume the care of secular houses should be corrected, unless
perchance the law called them to the administration of those not yet come of
age, from which there is no exemption. Unless further their Bishop permits
them to take care of orphans and widows.

BRIGHT

These two cases excepted, the undertaking of secular business was made
ecclesiastically penal. Yet this is not to be construed as forbidding clerics

657

to work at trades either when the church-funds were insufficient to
maintain them, or in order to have more to bestow in alms, or as an
example of industry or humility. Thus, most of the clergy of Caesarea in
Cappadocia practiced sedentary trades for a livelihood (Basil, Epist.,
cxcviii., 1); and some African canons allow, or even direct, a cleric to live
by a trade, provided that his clerical duties are not neglected (Mansi, hi.,
955). At an earlier time Spyridion, the famous Cypriot bishop, still one of
the most popular saints in the Levant (Stanley's East. Church, p. 126),
retained, out of humility (drucpiocv noXXr\v Soc. 1:12), his occupation as a
shepherd; and in the latter part of the fourth century Zeno, bishop of
Maiuma, wove linen, partly to supply his own wants, and partly to
obtain means of helping the poor (Soz., 7:28). Sidonius mentions a
"reader" who maintained himself by commercial transactions (Epist., 6:8),
and in the Anglo-Saxon Church, although presbyters were forbidden to
become "negotiorum saecularium dispositores" (CI. of Clovesho in 747, c.
8), or to be "mongers and covetous merchants" (Elfric's canons, xxx.), yet
the canons of King Edgar's reign ordered every priest "diligently to learn a
handicraft" (No. 11; Wilkins, 1:225). In short, it was not the mere fact of
secular employment, but secularity of motive and of tone that was
condemned.

This canon was the second of these proposed by the Emperor, and is
found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I. Dist.
lxxxvi., C. xxyj.

658

CANON IV

Let those who truly and sincerely lead the monastic life be counted
worthy of becoming honor; but, forasmuch as certain persons using the
pretext of monasticism bring confusion both upon the churches and into
political affairs by going about promiscuously in the cities, and at the same
time seeking to establish Monasteries for themselves; it is decreed that no
one anywhere build or found a monastery or oratory contrary to the will
of the bishop of the city; and that the monks in every city and district
shall be subject to the bishop, and embrace a quiet course of life, and give
themselves only to fasting and prayer, remaining permanently in the
places in which they were set apart; and they shall meddle neither in
ecclesiastical nor in secular affairs, nor leave their own monasteries to take
part in such; unless, indeed, they should at any time through urgent
necessity be appointed thereto by the bishop of the city. And no slave
shall be received into any monastery to become a monk against the will of
his master. And if any one shall transgress this our judgment, we have
decreed that he shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not
blasphemed. But the bishop of the city must make the needful provision
for the monasteries.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

Domestic oratories and monasteries are not to be erected contrary to the
judgment of the bishop. Every monk must be subject to his bishop, and
must not leave his house except at his suggestion. A slave, however, can
not enter the monastic life without the consent of his master.

659

HEFELE

Like the previous canon, this one was brought forward by the Emperor
Marcian in the sixth session, and then as number one, and the synod
accepted the Emperor's proposed canon almost verbally. Occasion for this
canon seems to have been given by monks of Eutychian tendencies, and
especially by the Syrian Barsumas, as appears from the fourth session. He
and his monks had, as Eutychians, withdrawn themselves from the
jurisdiction of their bishops, whom they suspected of Nestorianism.

BRIGHT

Here observe the definite assertion of episcopal authority over monks, as
it is repeated for greater clearness in the last words of the canon, which are
not found in Marcian' s draft, "It is the duty of the bishop of the city to
make due provision for the monasteries." and compare canons 8, 24.
Isidore says that the bishop must "keep an eye on the negligences of
monks" (Epist., 1:149). The Western Church followed in this track (see
Council of Agde, canon xxvii., that "no new monastery is to be rounded
without the bishop's approval," and 1st of Orleans, canon xix., "Let
abbots be under the bishop's power," and also Vth of Paris, canon xij.,
Mansi, viii., 329, 354, 542, etc.), until a reaction set in against the
oppressiveness of bishops, was encouraged by Gregory the Great (Epist.,
1:12; 2:41), the IVth Council of Toledo (canon li.), and the English Council
of Hertford (canon iij., Bede, 4:5, and Bright' s Chapters of Early Engl. Ch.
Hist., p. 244), and culminated in the system of monastic exemptions, of
which Monte Cassino, St. Martin's of Tours, Fulda, Westminster, Battle
(see Freeman, Norm. Conquest, 4:409), and St Alban's were eminent
instances.

This canon, cut up and mutilated, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XVI., Quest. L, can. xij., and Causa
XVIIL, Quest. II., Canon X.

660

I have followed the reading of the Prisca, and of Dionysius, of Routh, and
of Balsamon, "they were set apart," i.e. (as Balsamon explains) where
they received the monastic tonsure. This reading substitutes ocTtexd^avTO
for e7teToc^avTO which would mean "over which they had been put in
authority," or possibly (as Johnson) "where they are appointed," or as
Hammond, "in which they have been settled." Isidore reads "ordinati
sunt."

661

CANON V

Concerning bishops or clergymen who go about from city to city, it is
decreed that the canons enacted by the Holy Fathers shall still retain their
force.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

Those who go from city to city shall be subject to the canon law on the
subject.

Clerical adventurers and brief pastorates are not the peculiar characteristics
of any one century.

BRIGHT

It is supposed by Hefele that the bishops were thinking of the case of
Bassian, who, in the eleventh session (Oct. 29), pleaded that he had been
violently ejected from the see of Ephesus. Stephen the actual bishop,
answered that Bassian had not been "ordained" for that see, but had
invaded it and been justly expelled. Bassian rejoined that his original
consecration for the see of Evasa had been forcible even to brutality; that
he had never even visited Evasa, that therefore his appointment to
Ephesus was not a translation. Ultimately, the Council cut the knot by
ordering that a new bishop should be elected, Basalan and Stephen
retaining the episcopal title and receiving allowances from the revenues of
the see (Mansi, 7:273 et seqq.)

662

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VIL, Quaest. I., can. xxij.

663

CANON VI

Neither presbyter, deacon, nor any of the ecclesiastical order shall be
ordained at large, nor unless the person ordained is particularly appointed
to a church in a city or village, or to a martyry, or to a monastery. And if
any have been ordained without a charge, the holy Synod decrees, to the
reproach of the ordainer, that such an ordination shall be inoperative, and
that such shall nowhere be suffered to officiate.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

In Marty ries and Monasteries ordinations are strictly forbidden. Should
any one be ordained therein, his ordination shall be reputed of no effect.

VAN ESPEN

The wording of the canon seems to intimate that the synod of Chalcedon
held ordinations of this sort to be not only illicit but also invalid, irritis and
cassis. Nor is this to be wondered at, if we take into account the pristine
and ancient discipline of the church and the opinion of many of the
Scholastics (Morinus, De SS. Ordinal., Parte III., Exercit. V., cap

HEFELE.

It is clear that our canon forbids the so-called absolute ordinations, and
requires that every cleric must at the time of his ordination be designated
to a definite church. The only titulus which is here recognized is that

664

which was later known as titulus beneficii. As various kinds of this title we
find here (a) the appointment to a church in the city; (b) to a village
church; (c) that to the chapel of a martyr; (d) the appointment as chaplain
of a monastery. For the right understanding of the last point, it must be
remembered that the earliest monks were in no wise clerics, but that soon
the custom was introduced in every larger convent, of having at least one
monk ordained presbyter, that he might provide for divine service in the
monastery.

Similar prohibitions of ordinationes absolutoe were also put forth in after
times.

According to existing law, absolute ordinations, as is well known, are still
illicitae, but yet validoe, and even the Council of Chalcedon has not
declared them to be properly invalidoe, but only as without effect (by
permanent suspension). Cf Kober, Suspension, S. 220, and Hergenrother,
Photius, etc., Bd. ii., S. 324.

BRIGHT

By the word uxxprupicp ("martyry") is meant a church or chapel raised
over a martyr's grave. So the Laodicene Council forbids Churchmen to
visit the "martyries of heretics" (can. ix.). So Gregory of Nyssa speaks of
"the martyry" of the Holy Martyrs (Op. ii., 212); Chrysostom of a
"martyry," and Palladius of "martyries" near Antioch (In Act. Apost.
Horn., 38:5; Dial., p. 17), and Palladius of "the martyry of St. John" at
Constantinople (Dial., p. 25). See Socrates, 4:18, 23, on the "martyry" of
St. Thomas at Edessa, and that of SS. Peter and Paul at Rome; and 6:6, on
the "martyry" of St. Euphenia at Chalcedon in which the Council actually
met. In the distinct sense of a visible testimony, the word was applied to
the church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem (Eusebius, Vit. Con., 3:40,
4:40; Mansi, 6:564; Cyril, Catech., 14:3), and to the Holy Sepulcher itself
(Vit. Con., 3:28), Churches raised over martyrs' totals were called in the
West "memorioe martyrum," see God. Afric, 83: (compare Augustine, De
Curapro Mortuis, VI.).

665

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. lxx., can. j.

666

CANON VII

We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled among the clergy,
or have been made monks, shall accept neither a military charge nor any
secular dignity; and if they shall presume to do so and not repent in such
wise as to turn again to that which they had first chosen for the love of
God, they shall be anathematized.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

If any cleric or monk arrogantly affects the military or any other dignity, let
him be cursed.

HEr EEE.

Something similar was ordered by the 83: (lxxxii.) Apostolic Canon, only
that it threatens the cleric who takes military service merely with
deposition from his clerical office, while our canon subjects him to
excommunication. The Greek commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, think
that our canon selects a more severe punishment, that of excommunication,
because it has in view those clerics who have not merely taken military
service, etc., but at the same time have laid aside their clerical dress and
put on secular clothing.

667

BRIGHT

By aTporce'iocv [which I have translated (or, as Canon Bright thinks,
mistranslated) "military charge"], "militiam," is here meant, not military
employment as such, but the public service in general. This use of the term
is a relic and token of the military basis of the Roman monarchy. The
court of the Imperator was called his camp, aTpocTorceSov (God. Theod.,
torn. ii.„ p. 22), as in Constantine's letter's to John Archaph and the
Council of Tyre (Athan., Apol. c. Ari., 70:86), and in the Vllth canon of
Sardica, so Athanasius speaks of the "camp" of Constans (Apol. ad
Constant, iv.), and of that of Constantius at Milan (Hist. Ari., xxxvij.); so
Hosius uses the same phrase in his letter to Constantius (ib. xliv.); so the
Semi-Arian bishops, when addressing Jovian (Soz., 6:4); so Chrysostom in
the reign of Theodosius I. (Horn, ad Pop. Antioch, 6:2). Similarly, there
were officers of the palace called Castrensians (Tertull. De Cor., 12), as
being "milites alius generis — de imperatoria familia" (Gothofred, God.
Theod., torn, ii., p. 526). So axpaxeveaQai is used for holding a place at
court, as in Soc, 4:9; Soz., 6:9, on Marcian's case, and a very clear passage
in Soc, 5:25, where the verb is applied to an imperial secretary. It occurs
in combination with oTpocTe'ioc in a petition of an Alexandrian deacon
named Theodore, which was read in the third session of Chalcedon: he
says, '"Eaxpaxet)ad(xev for about twenty-two years in the Schola of the
magistrians" (under the Magister officionum, or chief magistrate of the
palace), "but I disregarded cycpocTeioc<; toooijtov %p6voru in order to enter
the ministry" (Mansi, 6:1008). See also Theodoret, Relig. Hist., xij., on the
emperor's letter-carriers. In the same sense Honorius, by a law of 408,
forbids non-Catholics "intra palatium militare" (Cod Theod., xvi., 5, 42);
and the Vandal king Hunneric speaks of "domusnostrae militiae" (Vic r
Vitens, 4:2).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars IL, Causa xx., Quaest. hi., Can. iij.

668

CANON vm

Let the clergy of the poor-houses, monasteries, and martyries remain
under the authority of the bishops in every city according to the tradition
of the holy Fathers; and let no one arrogantly cast off the rule of his own
bishop; and if any shall contravene this canon in any way whatever, and
will not be subject to their own bishop, if they be clergy, let them be
subjected to canonical censure, and if they be monks or laymen, let them
be excommunicated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Any clergyman is an almshouse or monastery must submit himself to the
authority of the bishop of the city. But he who rebels against this let him pay
the penalty.

VAN ESPEN

From this canon we learn that the synod of Chalcedon willed that all who
were in charge of such pious institutions should be subject to the bishop,
and in making this decree the synod only followed the tradition of the
Fathers and Canons. Although in its first part the canon only mentions
"clergymen," yet in the second part monks are named, and, as Balsamon
and Zonoras point out, both are included.

669

BRIGHT

What a 7tTco%e16vwas may be seen from what Gibbon calls the "noble and
charitable foundation, almost a new city" (iii. 252), established by St. Basil
at a little distance from Caesarea, and called in consequence the Basiliad.
Gregory Nazianzen describes it as a large set of buildings with rooms for
the sick, especially for lepers, and also for house-less travelers; "a
storehouse of piety, where disease was born philosophically, and
sympathy was tested" (Orat., xliii., 63, compare Basil himself, Epist.,
xciv., on its staff of nurses and physicians and cl., 3). Sozomen calls it "a
most celebrated resting-place for the poor," and names Prapidius as having
been its warden while acting as "bishop over many villages" (vi. 34, see on
Nic, viii.). Another ?n;co%OTpo(peiov is mentioned by Basil (Epist., cxliij.)
as governed by a chorepiscopus. St. Chrysostom, on coming to the see of
Constantinople, ordered the excess of episcopal expenditure to be
transferred to the hospital for the sick (voaoKopeiov) and "founded other
such hospitals setting over them two pious presbyters, with physicians
and cooks.... so that foreigners arriving in the city, on being attacked by
disease, might receive aid, both because it was a good work in itself, and
for the glory of the Savior" (Palladius, Dial., p. 19). At Ephesus Bassian
founded a 7tTco%eiTovwith seventy pallets for the sick (Mansi, vii., 277),
and there were several such houses in Egypt (ib., vi., 1013; in the next
century there was a hospital for the sick at Daphne near Antioch (Evagr.,
iv., 35). "The tradition of the holy fathers" is here cited as barring any
claim on the part of clerics officiating in these institutions, or in
monasteries or martyries, to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the
ordinary. They are to "abide under it," and not to indulge self-will by
"turning restive" against their bishop's authority" (acpnvi&^cois literally to
get the bit between the teeth, and is used by Aetius for "not choosing to
obey," Mansi, vii., 72). Those who dare to violate this clearly defined rule
(SiorctmcoGiv comp. ivnoc, in Nic, xix.), and to refuse subjection to their
own bishop, are, if clerics, to incur canonical censure, if monks or laics, to
be excommunicated. The allusion to laics points to laymen as founders or
benefactors of such institutions.

670

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XVIII. , Q. II., canon x., 3.

671

CANON IX

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not
forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the
matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any
person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop's consent, select.
And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to
canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own
or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if
a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of
the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the
throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Litigious clerics shall be punished according to canon, if they despise the
episcopal and resort to the secular tribunal. When a cleric has a contention
with a bishop let him wait till the synod sits, and if a bishop have a
contention with his metropolitan let him carry the case to Constantinople.

JOHNSON

Let the reader observe that here is a greater privilege given by a General
Council to the see of Constantinople than ever was given by any council,
even that of Sardica, to the bishop of Rome, viz., that any bishop or
clergyman might at the first instance bring his cause before the bishop of
Constantinople if the defendant were a metropolitan.

672

HEFELE

That our canon would refer not merely the ecclesiastical, but the civil
differences of the clergy, in the first case, to the bishop, is beyond a doubt.
And it comes out as clearly from the word rcpoxepov (= at first) that it
does not absolutely exclude a reference to the secular judges, but regards it
as allowable only when the first attempt at an adjustment of the
controversy by the bishop has miscarried. This

was quite clearly recognized by Justinian in his 123d Novel, c. 21: "If any
one has a case against a cleric, or a monk, or a deaconess, or a nun, or an
ascetic, he shall first make application to the bishop of his opponent, and
he shall decide. If both parties are satisfied with his decision, it shall then
be carried into effect by the imperial judge of the locality. If, however, one
of the contending parties lodges an appeal against the bishop's judgment
within ten days, then the imperial judge of the locality shall decide the
matter. There is no doubt that the expression "Exarch" employed in our
canon, and also in canon 17, means, in the first place, those superior
metropolitans who have several ecclesiastical provinces under them.
Whether, however, the great patriarchs, properly so called, are to be
included under it, may be doubted. The Emperor Justinian, in c. 22 of his
Novel just quoted (1. c.) in our text has, without further explanation,
substituted the expression Patriarch for Exarch, and in the same way the
commentator Aristenus has declared both terms to be identical adding that
only the Patriarch of Constantinople has the privilege of having a
metropolitan tried before him who does not belong to his patriarchate, but
is subject to another patriarch. In the same way our canon was understood
by Beveridge. Van Espen, on the contrary, thinks that the Synod had here
in view only the exarchs in file narrower sense (of Ephesus, Caesarea), but
not the Patriarchs, properly so called, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem, as it would be too great a violation of the ancient canons,
particularly of the 6 th of Nicaea, to have set aside the proper patriarch and
have allowed an appeal to the Bishop of Constantinople (with this
Zonaras also agrees in his explanation of canon 17). Least of all, however,
would the Synod have made such a rule for the West, i.e., have allowed
that any one should set aside the Patriarch of Rome and appeal to the

673

Patriarch of Constantinople, since they themselves, in canon 28, assigned
the first place in rank to Rome.

It appears to me that neither Beveridge, etc., nor Van Espen are fully in
the right, while each is partially so. With Van Espen we must assume that
our Synod, in drawing up this canon, had in view only the Greek Church,
and not the Latin as well, particularly as neither the papal legates nor any
Latin bishop whatever was present at the drawing up of these canons. On
the other hand, Beveridge is also right in maintaining that the Synod made
no distinction between the patriarchs proper and the exarchs (such a
distinction must otherwise have been indicated in the text), and allowed
that quarrels which should arise among the bishops of other patriarchates
might be tried at Constantinople. Only that Beveridge ought to have
excepted the West and Rome.

The strange part of our canon may be explained in the following manner.
There were always many bishops at Constantinople from the most
different places, who came there to lay their contentions and the like
before the Emperor. The latter frequently referred the decision to the
bishop of Constantinople, who then, in union with the then present
bishops from the most different provinces, held a "Home Synod" and gave
the sentence required at this. Thus gradually the practice was formed of
controversies being decided by bishops of other patriarchates or exarchates
at Constantinople, to the setting aside of the proper superior
metropolitan, an example of which we have seen in that famous Synod of
Constantinople, A.D. 448, at which the case of Eutyches was the first
time brought forward.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XL, Q.I., canon xlvj.

674

CANON X

It shall not be lawful for a clergyman to be at the same time enrolled in the
churches of two cities, that is, in the church in which he was at first
ordained, and in another to which, because it is greater, he has removed
from lust of empty honor. And those who do so shall be returned to their
own church in which they were originally ordained, and there only shall
they minister. But if any one has heretofore been removed from one
church to another, he shall not intermeddle with the affairs of his former
church, nor with the martyries, almshouses, and hostels belonging to it.
And if, after the decree of this great and ecumenical Synod, any shall dare
to do any of these things now forbidden, the synod decrees that he shall be
degraded from his rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

No cleric shall be recorded on the clergy -list of the churches of two cities.
But if he shall have strayed forth, let him be returned to his former place.
But if he has been transferred, let him have no share in the affairs of his
former church.

Van Espen, following Christian Lupus, remarks that this canon is opposed
to pluralities. For if a clergyman has by presentation and institution
obtained two churches, he is enrolled in two churches at the same time,
contrary to this canon; but surely that this be the case, the two churches
must needs be in two cities, and that, in the days of Chalcedon, meant in
two dioceses.

675
BRIGHT

Here a new institution comes into view, of which there were many
instances. Julian had directed Pagan hospices (^evoSo%eioc) to be
established on the Christian model (Epist. xlix.). The Basiliad at Caesarea
was a ^evo8o%eiov as well as a?n;co%£iov; it contained Kaxaycoyia idiq
^evoig as well as for wayfarers, and those who needed assistance on
account of illness, and Basil distinguished various classes of persons
engaged in charitable ministrations, including those who escorted the
traveler on his way (to-ix; 7tocpoc7t£jj,7tovToc<;, Epist. xciv.). Jerome writes
to Pammachius: "I hear that you have made a 'xenodochion' in the port of
Rome," and adds that he himself had built a "diversorium "for pilgrims to
Bethlehem (Epist. xvi., 11, 14). Chrysostom reminds his auditors at
Constantinople that "there is a common dwelling set apart by the
Church," and "called a xenon" (in Act. Horn., 45:4). His friend Olympias
was munificent to "xenotrophia" (Hint. Lausiac, 144). There was a
xenodochion near the church of the monastic settlement at Nitria (ib., 7).
Ischyrion, in his memorial read in the 3d session of Chalcedon, complains
of his patriarch Dioscorus for having misapplied funds bequeathed by a
charitable ladycoi<; ^evecooi koci 7txco%eioi<; in Egypt, and says that he
himself had been confined by Dioscorus in a "xenon" for lepers (Mansi,
6:1013, 1017). Justinian mentions xenodochia in God., 1:3, 49, and their
wardens in Novell., 134, 16. Gregory the Great orders that the accounts of
xenodochia should be audited by the bishop (Epist. iv., 27). Charles the
Great provides for the restoration of decayed "senodochia" (Capitul. of
803; Pertz, Leg., 1:110); and Alcuin exhorts his pupil, archbishop Eanbald,
to think where in the diocese of York he could establish "xenodochia, id
est, hospitalia" (Epist. L.).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXL, Q. L., canon jj., and again Causa XXL, Q. II., canon

iij-

676

CANON XI

We have decreed that the poor and those needing assistance shall travel,
after examination, with letters merely pacifical from the church, and not
with letters commendatory, inasmuch as letters commendatory ought to be
given only to persons who are open to suspicion.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL

Let the poor who stand in need of help make their journey with letters
pacificatory and not commendatory: For letters commendatory should only
be given to those who are open to suspicion.

ARISTENUS.

The poor who need help should journey with letters pacificatory from the
bishop, so that those who have the ability to help them may be moved
with pity. These need no letters commendatory, such letters should be
shown, however, by presbyters and deacons, and by the rest of the clergy.

See notes on canons vii., viii., and xj. of Antioch; and on canon xlij. of
Laodicea.

HEFELE

The mediaeval commentators, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus,
understand this canon to mean that letters of commendation, gdgtoctikou

677

commendatitioe litteroe were given to those laymen and clerics who were
previously subject to ecclesiastical censure, and therefore were suspected
by other bishops, and for this reason needed a special recommendation, in
order to be received in another church into the number of the faithful. The
letters of peace (eipnviKoci) on the contrary, were given to those who
were in undisturbed communion with their bishop, and had not the least
evil reputation abroad.

Our canon was understood quite differently by the old Latin writers,
Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, who translate the words ev -u7toXr|\|/ei>
by personoe honoratiores and clariores, and the learned Bishop Gabriel
Aubespine of Orleans has endeavored to prove, in his notes to our canon,
that the litteroe pacificoe were given to ordinary believers, and the
commendatitioe (g-uotoctikcu) on the contrary, only to clerics and to
distinguished laymen; and in favor of this view is the 13:canon of
Chalcedon.

With regard to this much- vexed point, authorities are so divided that no
absolute judgment can be arrived at. The interpretation I have followed is
that of the Greeks and of Hervetus, which seems to be supported by
Apostolic Canon XIII. , and was that adopted by Johnson and Hammond.
On the other hand are the Prisca, Dionysius, Isidore, Tillemont, Routh,
and to these Bright seems to unite himself by sating that this "sense is the
more natural."

678

CANON XII

It has come to our knowledge that certain persons, contrary to the laws of
the Church, having had recourse to secular powers, have by means of
imperial rescripts divided one Province into two, so that there are
consequently two metropolitans in one province; therefore the holy Synod
has decreed that for the future no such thing shall be attempted by a
bishop, since he who shall undertake it shall be degraded from his rank.
But the cities which have already been honored by means of imperial
letters with the name of metropolis, and the bishops in charge of them,
shall take the bare title, all metropolitan rights being preserved to the true
Metropolis.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OR CANON XH

One province shall not be cut into two. Whoever shall do this shall be cast
out of the episcopate. Such cities as are cut off by imperial rescript shall
enjoy only the honor of having a bishop settled in them: but all the rights
pertaining to the true metropolis shall be preserved.

BRIGHT

We learn from this canon, there were cases in which an ambitious prelate,
"by making application to the government" ("secular powers") had
obtained what are called "pragmatic letters," and employed them for the
purpose of "dividing one province into two," and exalting himself as a
metropolitan. The name of a "pragmatic sanction" is more familiar in
regard to medieval and modern history; it recalls the name of St. Louis,

679

and, still more, that of the Emperor Charles VI. the father of Maria
Theresa. Properly a "pragmatic" was a deliberate order promulgated by
the Emperor after full hearing of advice, on some public affair. We find
"pragmatici nostri statuta" in a law of A.D. 431. (God. Theod., 11:1, 36);
and pragmatici prioris," "sub hac pragmatica jussione," in ordinances in
Append, to God. Theod., pp. 95, 162; and the empress Pulcheria, about a
year before the Council, had informed Leo that her husband Marcian had
recalled some exiled orthodox bishops "robore pragmatici sui" (Leon.,
Epist. lxxvij.). Justinian speaks of "pragmaticas nostras formas" and
"pragmaticum typum" (Novel., 7, 9, etc.). The phrase was adopted from
his legislation by Louis the Pious and his colleague-son Lothar (compare
Novel. 7, 2 with Pertz, Mon. Germ, Hist. Leg., i., 254), and hence it came
to be used both by later German emperors (see, e.g., Bryce's Holy Roman
Empire, p. 212), and by the French kings (Kitchin, Hist. France, 1:343,
544). Augustine explains it by "praeceptum imperatoris" (Brev. Collat.
cum Donatist. iii., 2), and Balsamon in his comment uses an equivalent
phrase; and so in the record of the fourth session of Chalcedon we have
Geioc yp&|X|xoctoc ("divine" being practically, equivalent to "imperial")
explained by TtpayixaxiKO-ix; xinzovc, (Mansi, vii., 89). We must observe
that the imperial order, in the cases contemplated by the canon, had only
conferred the title of "metropolis" on the city, and had not professed to
divide the province for civil, much less for ecclesiastical, purposes. Valens,
indeed, had divided the province of Cappadocia, when in 371 he made
Tyana a metropolis: and therefore Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, when he
claimed the position of a metropolitan, with authority over suffragans,
was making a not unnatural inference in regard to ecclesiastical limits from
political rearrangements of territory, as Gregory of Nazianzus says (Orat.
xliii., 58), whereas Basil "held to the old custom," i.e., to the traditional
unity of his provincial church, although after a while he submitted to what
he could not hinder (see Tillemont, ix., 175, 182, 670). But in the case of
Eustathius of Berytus, which was clearly in the Council's mind, the
Phoenician province had not been divided; it was in reliance on a mere title
bestowed upon his city, and also on an alleged synodical ordinance which
issued in fact from the so-called "Home Synod" that he declared himself
independent of his metropolitan, Photius of Tyre, and brought six
bishoprics under his assumed jurisdiction. Thus while the province
remained politically one, he had de facto divided it ecclesiastically into

680

two. Photius petitioned Marcian, who referred the case to the Council of
Chalcedon, and it was taken up in the fourth session. The imperial
commissioners announced that it was to be settled not according to
"pragmatic forms," but according to those which had been enacted by the
Fathers (Mansi, vii., 89). This encouraged the Council to say, "A
pragmatic can have no force against the canons." The commissioners asked
whether it was lawful for bishops, on the ground of a pragmatic, to steal
away the rights of other churches? The answer was explicit: "No, it is
against the canon." The Council proceeded to cancel the resolution of the
Home Synod in favor of the elevation of Berytus, ordered the 4th Nicene
canon to be read, and upheld the metropolitical rights of Tyre. The
commissioners also pronounced against Eustathius. Cecropius, bishop of
Sebastopolis, requested them to put an end to the issue of pragmatics
made to the detriment of the canons; the Council echoed this request; and
the commissioners granted it by declaring that the canons should
everywhere stand good (Mansi, vii., 89-97). We may connect with this
incident a law of Martian dated in 454, by which "all pragmatic sanctions,
obtained by means of favor or ambition in opposition to the canon of the
Church, are declared to be deprived of effect" (God. Justin, L, 2, 12).

To this decision the present canon looks back, when it forbids any bishop,
on pain of deposition, to presume to do as Eustathius had done, since it
decrees that "he who attempts to do so shall fall from his own rank
(poc9u.o{)) in the Church. And cities which have already obtained the
honorary title of a metropolis from the emperor are to enjoy the honor
only, and their bishops to be but honorary metropolitans, so that all the
rights of the real metropolis are to be reserved to it." So, at the end of the
6th session the emperor had announced that Chalcedon was to be a titular
metropolis, saving all the rights of Nicemedia; and the Council had
expressed its assent (Mansi, xii., 177; cf. Le Quien, L, 602). Another case
was discussed in the 13th session of the Council. Anastasius of Nicaea had
claimed to be independent of his metropolitan Eunomius of Nicemedia, on
the ground of an ordinance of Valens, recognizing the city of Nicaea as by
old custom a "metropolis." Eunomius, who complained of Anastasius' s
encroachments, appealed to a later ordinance, guaranteeing to the capital of
Bithynia its rights as unaffected by the honor conferred on Nicaea: the
Council expressed its mind in favor of Eunomius, and the dispute was

681

settled by a decision "that the bishop of Nicomedia should have
metropolitical authority over the Bithynian churches, while the bishop of
Nicaea should have merely the honor of a metropolitan, being subjected,
like the other comprovincials, to the bishop of Nicomedia (Mansi, vii.,
313). Zonaras says that this canon was in his time no longer observed; and
Balsamon says that when the primates of Heraclea and Ancyra cited it as
upholding their claim to perform the consecration of two "honorary
metropolitans," they were overruled by a decree of Alexius Comnenus, "in
presence and with consent" of a synod (on Trullan, canon xxxviij.)-

The first part of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Grat
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. ci., canon j.

682

CANON xm

Strange and unknown clergymen without letters commendatory from
their own Bishop, are absolutely prohibited from officiating in another
city.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

No cleric shall be received to communion in another city without a letter
commendatory.

"Unknown clergymen." I have here followed the reading of the Greek
commentators. But the translators of the Prisca, and Dionysius, and
Isidore must have all read avocyvcoaTocc; (i.e., Readers) instead of
ocyvcoaxotx; Justellus, Hervetus, and Beveridge, as also Johnson and
Hammond, follow the reading of the text. Hefele suggests that if "Readers'
is the correct reading perhaps it means, "all clergymen even readers."

683

CANON xrv

Since in certain provinces it is permitted to the readers and singers to
marry, the holy Synod has decreed that it shall not be lawful for any of
them to take a wife that is heterodox. But those who have already begotten
children of such a marriage, if they have already had their children baptized
among the heretics, must bring them into the communion of the Catholic
Church; but if they have not had them baptized, they may not hereafter
baptize them among heretics, nor give them in marriage to a heretic, or a
Jew, or a heathen, unless the person marrying the orthodox child shall
promise to come over to the orthodox faith. And if any one shall
transgress this decree of the holy synod, let him be subjected to canonical
censure.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

A Cantor or Lector alien to the sound faith, if being then married, he shall
have begotten children let him bring them to communion, if they had there
been baptized. But if they had not yet been baptized they shall not be
baptized afterwards by the heretics.

ARISTENUS.

The tenth and thirty-first canons of the Synod of Laodicea and the second
of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, and this present canon forbid one of the
orthodox to be joined in marriage with a woman who is a heretic, or vice
versa. But if any of the Cantors or Lectors had taken a wife of another sect
before these canons were set forth, and had had children by her, and had
had them baptized while yet he remained among the heretics, 1 these he
should bring to the communion of the Catholic Church. But if they had not

684

yet been baptized, he must not turn back and have them baptized among
heretics. But departing thence let him lead them to the Catholic Church
and enrich them with divine baptism.

HEFELE

According to the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus, who speaks only
of the daughters of the lectors, etc., the meaning may be understood, with
Christian Lupus, as being that only their daughters must not be married to
heretics or Jews or heathen, but that the sons of readers may take wives
who are heretics, etc., because that men are less easily led to fall away
from the faith than women. But the Greek text makes here no distinction
between sons and daughters.

BRIGHT

It is to Victor that we owe the most striking of all anecdotes about readers.
During the former persecution under Genseric (or Gaiseric), the Arians
attacked a Catholic congregation on Easter Sunday; and while a reader was
standing alone in the pulpit, and chanting the "Alleluia melody" (cf.
Hammond, Liturgies, p. 95), an arrow pierced his throat, the "codex"
dropped from his hands, and he fell down dead (De Persec. Vand., i., 13).
Five years before the Council, a boy of eight named Epiphanius was made
a reader in the church of Pavia, and in process of time became famous as
its bishop. Justinian forbade readers to be appointed under eighteen
(Novel., 134, 13). The office is described in the Greek Euchologion as "the
first step to the priesthood," and is conferred with delivery of the book
containing the Epistles. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, tells us
that the bishop ordained a reader by delivering to him "coram plebe," the
"codex" of Scripture: and after giving precise directions as to
pronunciation and accentuation, says that the readers were of old called
"heralds" (De Eccl Offic, ii., 11). (b) The Singers are placed by the xliijrd.
Apostolic canon between subdeacons and readers, but they rank below
readers in Laodic, c. 23, in the Liturgy of St. Mark (Hammond, p. 173),

685

and in the canons wrongly ascribed to a IVth Council of Carthage, which
permit a presbyter to appoint a "psalmist" without the bishop's
knowledge, and rank him even below the doorkeepers (Mansi, iii., 952).
The chief passage respecting the ancient "singers" is Laodic, xv.

The first part of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars I, Dist. 32:c. xv.

686

CANON XV

A Woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under
forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after
she has had hands laid on her and has continued for a time to minister, she
shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be
anathematized and the man united to her.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

No person shall be ordained deaconess except she be forty years of age. If
she shall dishonor her ministry by contracting a marriage, let her be
anathema.

This canon should be read carefully in connection with what is said in the
Excursus on deaconesses to canon Nix. of Nice.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXVII, Quaest. I., Canon xxiij.

687

CANON XVI.

It is not lawful for a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, nor
for monks, to marry; and if they are found to have done this, let them be
excommunicated. But we decree that in every place the bishop shall have
the power of indulgence towards them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Monks or nuns shall not contract marriage, and if they do so let them be
excommunicated.

VAN ESPEN

Since this canon says nothing at all of separation in connection with a
marriage made contrary to a vow, but only orders separation from
communion, it seems very likely that vows of this kind at the time of the
synod were not considered diriment but only impedient impediments from
which the bishop of the diocese could dispense at least as far as the
canonical punishment was concerned.

HEFELE

The last part of the canon gives the bishop authority in certain
circumstances not to inflict the excommunication which is threatened in
the first part, or again to remove it. Thus all the old Latin translators
understood our text; but Dionysius Exiguus and the Prisca added

688

confitentibus, meaning, "if such a virgin or monk confess and repent their
fault, then the bishop may be kind to them." That the marriage of a monk
is invalid, as was ruled by later ecclesiastical law, our canon does not say;
on the contrary, it assumes its validity, as also the marriages contracted by
priests until the beginning of the twelfth century were regarded as valid.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa xxvii., Quaest. I., canon xxii., from Isidore's version; it is
also found in Dionysius's version as canon xij. of the same Quaestio,
Causa, and Part, where it is said to be taken "ex Concilio Triburiensi."

689

CANON XVII

Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the
bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops
have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty
years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute
concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to
bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be
wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of
the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any
city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let
the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal
example.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Village and rural parishes if they have been possessed f or thirty years,
they shall so continue. But if within that time, the matter shall be subject to
adjudication. But if by the command of the Emperor a city be renewed, the
order of ecclesiastical parishes shall follow the civil and public forms.

BRIGHT

The adjective ey%copiot)<; is probably synonymous with dypoiKiK&f; ("
rusticas," Prisca), although Dionysius and Isidorian take in as "situated on
estates," cf. Routh, Scr. Opusc, ii., 109. It was conceivable that some such
outlying districts might form, ecclesiastically, a border-land, it might not

690

be easy to assign them definitively to this or that bishopric. In such a case,
says the Council, if the bishop who is now in possession of these rural
churches can show a prescription of thirty years in favor of his see, let
them remain undisturbed in his obedience. (Here afhdccrccoc, may be
illustrated from (3iaodpevo<; in Eph. 8:and for the use of oiKovojxeiv see
I. Const., ij.) But the border-land might be the "debate-able" land: the two
neighbor bishops might dispute as to the right to tend these "sheep in the
wilderness;" as we read in God. Afric, 117, "multae controversiae postea
inter episcopos de dioecesibus ortae aunt, et oriuntur" (see on I. Const.,
ij.); as archbishop Thomas of York, and Remigius of Dorchester, were at
issue for years "with reference to Lindsey" (Raine, Fasti Eborac, 1:150).
Accordingly, the canon provides that if such a contest had arisen within
the thirty years, or should thereafter arise, the prelate who considered
himself wronged might appeal to the provincial synod. If he should be
aggrieved at the decision of his metropolitan in synod, he might apply for
redress to the eparch (or prefect, a substitute for exarch) of the "diocese,"
or to the see of Constantinople (in the manner provided by canon ix.). It is
curious "that in Russia all the sees are divided into eparchies of the first,
second, and third class" (Neale, Essays on Liturgiology, p. 302).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XVI., Quaest. iii., can. j., in Isidore Mercator's version.

691

CANON xvm

The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by
the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of
God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected
in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or
fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

Clerics and Monks, if they shall have dared to hold conventicles and to
conspire against the bishop, shall be cast out of their rank.

BRIGHT

In order to appreciate this canon, we must consider the case of Ibas bishop
of Edessa. He had been attached to the Nestorians, but after the reunion
between Cyril and John of Antioch had re-entered into communion with
Cyril on the ground that Cyril had explained his anathemas (Mansi, vii.,
240), or, as he wrote to Maria (in a letter famous as one of the "Three
Chapters") that God had "softened the Egyptian's heart" (lb., 248). Four
of his priests (Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulegius), stimulated, says
Fleury (xxvij. 19) by Uranius bishop of Himeria, accused Ibas of
Nestorianism before his patriarch Domnus of Antioch, who held a synod,
but, as Samuel and Cyrus failed to appear, pronounced them defaulters
and set aside the case (Mansi, 7:217). They went up to Constantinople,
and persuaded Theodosius and archbishop Flavian to appoint a
commission for inquiring into the matter. Two sessions, so to speak were
held by the three prelates thus appointed, one at Berytus the other at

692

Tyre. At Berytus, according to the extant minutes (Mansi, vii., 212 ff.),
five new accusers joined the original four, and charges were brought which
affected the moral character of Ibas as well as his orthodoxy. The charge of
having used a "blasphemous" speech implying that Christ was but a man
deified, was rebutted by a statement signed by some sixty clerics of
Edessa, who according to the accusers, had been present when Ibas uttered
it. At Tyre the episcopal judges succeeded in making peace, and accusers
and accused partook of the communion together (ib., vii., 209). The
sequence of these proceedings cannot be thoroughly ascertained, but
Hefele (sect. 169) agrees with Tillemont (xv., 474 et seqq.) in dating the
trial at Berytus slightly earlier than that at Tyre, and assigning both to the
February of 448 or 449. Fleury inverts this order, and thinks that,
"notwithstanding the reconciliation" at Tyre, the four accusers renewed
their prosecution of Ibas (xxvij. 20); but he has to suppose two
applications on their part to Theodosius and Flavian, which seems
improbable.

"The Council is believed," says Tillemont (xv., 698), "to have had this
case in mind when drawing up the present canon:" and one can hardly help
thinking that, on a spot within sight of Constantinople, they must have
recalled the protracted sufferings which malignant plotters had inflicted on
St. Chrysostom.

This canon is found in part in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars II., I Causa XL, Quaest. I., canons xxj. and xxiij.

693

CANON XIX.

Whereas it has come to our ears that in the provinces the Canonical
Synods of Bishops are not held, and that on this account many
ecclesiastical matters which need reformation are neglected; therefore,
according to the canons of the holy Fathers, the holy Synod decrees that
the bishops of every province shall twice in the year assemble together
where the bishop of the Metropolis shall approve, and shall then settle
whatever matters may have arisen. And bishops, who do not attend, but
remain in their own cities, though they are in good health and free from
any unavoidable and necessary business, shall receive a brotherly
admonition.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OR CANON XIX

Twice each year the Synod shall be held where-ever the bishop of the
Metropolis shall designate, and all matters of pressing interest shall be
determined.

See notes on Canon V. of Nice, and on Canon XX. of Antioch, and
compare canon VIII. of the council in Trullo.

BRIGHT

Hilary of Aries and his suffragans, assembled at Riez, had already, in 439
qualified the provision for two by adding significantly "if the times are
quiet" (Mansi, v., 1 194). The words were written at the close of ten years'

694

war, during which the Visigoths of Septimania "were endeavoring to take
Aries and Narbonne" (Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, ii., 121).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. XVIII. , canon vj.

695

CANON XX

It shall not be lawful, as we have already decreed, for clergymen officiating
in one church to be appointed to the church of another city, but they shall
cleave to that in which they were first thought worthy to minister; those,
however, being excepted, who have been driven by necessity from their
own country, and have therefore removed to another church. And if, after
this decree, any bishop shall receive a clergyman belonging to another
bishop, it is decreed that both the received and the receiver shall be
excommunicated until such time as the clergyman who has removed shall
have returned to his own church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OR CANON XX

A clergyman of one city shall not be given a cure in another. But if he has
been driven from his native place and shall go into another he shall be
without blame. If any bishop receives clergymen from without his diocese
he shall be excommunicated as well as the cleric he receives.

It is quite doubtful as to what "excommunication" means in this canon,
probably not anathematism (so think the commentators) but separation
from the communion of the other bishops, and suspension from the
performance of clerical functions.

BRIGHT

This canon is the third of those which were originally proposed by
Marcian in the end of the sixth session, as certain articles for which

696

synodical sanction was desirable (see above Canons iij. and iv.). It was
after they had been delivered by the Emperor's own hand to Anatolius of
Constantinople that the Council broke out into plaudits, one of which is
sufficiently startling, xaiiepei, T&^aaiXei (Mansi, vii., 177). The
imperial draft is in this case very slightly altered. A reference is made to a
previous determination (i.e., canon x.) against clerical pluralities, and it is
ordered that "clerics registered as belonging to one church shall not be
ranked as belonging to the church of another city, but must be content
with the one in which they were originally admitted to minister, excepting
those who, having lost their own country, have been compelled to migrate
to another church," — an exception intelligible enough at such a period.
Eleven years before, the Vandal Gaiseric had expelled the Catholic bishops
and priests of Western Africa from their churches: Quodvultdeus, bishop
of Carthage with many of his clergy, had been "placed on board some
unseaworthy vessels," and yet, "by the Divine mercy, had been carried
safe to Naples" (Vict. Vitens., De Persec. Vandal., L, 5: he mentions other
bishops as driven into exile). Somewhat later, the surge of the Hunnish
invasion had frightened the bishop of Sirmium into sending his church
vessels to Attila's Gaulish secretary and had swept onward in 447 to
within a short distance of the "New Rome" (Hodgkin, Italy and her
Invaders, ii., 54-56). And the very year of the Council was the most
momentous in the whole history of the "Barbaric" movement. The
bishops who assembled in October at Chalcedon must have heard by that
time of the massacre of the Metz clergy on Easter Eve, of a bishop of
Rheims slain at his own altar, of the deliverance of Orleans at the prayer of
St. Anianus, of "the supreme battle" in the plain of Chalons, which turned
back Attila and rescued Christian Gaul (Hodgkin, ii., 129-152; Kitchin,
Hist. France, 1:61).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. lxxi, c. iv.

697

CANON XXI

Clergymen and laymen bringing charges against bishops or clergymen are
not to be received loosely and without examination, as accusers, but their
own character shall first be investigated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

A cleric or layman making charges rashly against his bishop shall not be
received.

Compare with this canon the Vlth Canon of those credited to the First
Synod at Constantinople, the second ecumenical.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa II., Quest. VII., canon xlix., in Isidore's first version.

698

CANON XXII

It is not lawful for clergymen, after the death of their bishop, to seize
what belongs to him, as has been forbidden also by the ancient canons; and
those who do so shall be in danger of degradation from their own rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

Whoever seizes the goods of his deceased bishop shall be cast forth from
his rank.

It is curious that the Greek text which Zonaras and Balsamon produce, and
which Hervetus translated, had instead of toi<; TtdcXoci kocvogi tok;
7tapataxjj,|3dvo'uaiv Van Espen thinks that the Greek commentators have
tried without success to attach any meaning to these words, accepting the
arguments of Bp. Beveridge (which see). The reading adopted in the text
does not lack MS. authority, and is the one printed by Justellus in his
"Codex of the Canons of the Universal Church."

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XII., Quest. II., canon xliii., in Isidore's version.

699

CANON XXIII

It has come to the hearing of the holy Synod that certain clergymen and
monks, having no authority from their own bishop, and sometimes,
indeed, while under sentence of excommunication by him, betake
themselves to the imperial Constantinople, and remain there for a long
time, raising disturbances and troubling the ecclesiastical state, and turning
men's houses upside down. Therefore the holy Synod has determined that
such persons be first notified by the Advocate of the most holy Church of
Constantinople to depart from the imperial city; and if they shall
shamelessly continue in the same practices, that they shall be expelled by
the same Advocate even against their will, and return to their own places.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

Clerics or monks who spend much time at Constantinople contrary to the
will of their bishop, and stir up seditions, shall be cast out of the city.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XVI, Quaest. I., canon xvij. but with the last part
epitomized, as the Roman correctors point out.

700

CANON XXIV

Monasteries, which have once been consecrated with the consent of the
bishop, shall remain monasteries for ever, and the property belonging to
them shall be preserved, and they shall never again become secular
dwellings. And they who shall permit this to be done shall be liable to
ecclesiastical penalties.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

A monastery erected with the consent of the bishop shall be immovable.
And whatever pertains to it shall not be alienated. Whoever shall take upon
him to do otherwise, shall not be held guiltless.

Joseph Aegyptius, in turning this into Arabic, reads: "And whoever shall
turn any monastery into a dwelling house for himself... let him be cursed
and anathema." The curious reader is referred on this whole subject to Sir
Henry Spelman's History and Fate of Sacrilege, or to the more handy
book on the subject by James Wayland Joyce, The Doom of Sacrilege.

BRIGHT

The secularization of monasteries was an evil which grew with their
wealth and influence. At a Council held by the patriarch Photius in the
Apostles' church at Constantinople, it is complained that some persons
attach the name of "monastery" to property of their own, and while
professing to dedicate it to God, write themselves down as lords of what
has been thus consecrated, and are not ashamed to claim after such

701

consecration the same power over it which they had before. In the West,
we find this abuse attracting the attention of Gregory the Great, who
writes to a bishop that "rationalis ordo" would not allow a layman to
pervert a monastic foundation at will to his own uses (Epist. viii., 31). In
ancient Scotland, the occasional dispersion of religious communities, and,
still more, the clan-principle which assigned chieftain-rights over
monasteries to the descendants of the founder, left at Dunkeld, Brechin,
Abernethy, and elsewhere, "nothing but the mere name of abbacy applied
to the lands, and of abbot born by the secular Lord for the time" (Skene's
Celtic Scotland, ii., 365; cf. Anderson's Scotland in Early Christian Times,
p. 235). So, after the great Irish monastery of Bangor in Down was
destroyed by the Northmen, "non defuit," says St. Bernard, "qui illud
teneret cure possessionibus suis; ham et constituebantur per electionem
etiam, et abbates appellabantur, servantes nomine, etsi non re, quod olim
exstiterat" (De Vita S. Malachioe, vj.). So in 1188 Giraldus Cambrensis
found a lay abbot in possession of the venerable church of Llanbadarn
Vawr; a "bad custom," he says, "had grown up, whereby powerful
laymen, at first chosen by the clergy to be "oeconomi" or "patroni et
defensores," had usurped "forum jus," appropriated the lands, and left to
the clergy nothing but the altars, with tithes and offerings (Itin. Camb. ii.,
4). This abuse must be distinguished from the corrupt device whereby, in
Bede's later years, Northumbrian nobles contrived to gain for their estates
the immunities of abbey-lands by professing to found monasteries, which
they filled with disorderly monks, who lived there in contempt of all rule
(Bede, Ep. to Egbert, vij.). In the year of his birth, the first English synod
had forbidden bishops to despoil consecrated monasteries (Bede, iv., 5).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XIX., Quaest. III., canon iv.

702

CANON XXV

Forasmuch as certain of the metropolitans, as we have heard, neglect the
flocks committed to them, and delay the ordinations of bishops the holy
Synod has decided that the ordinations of bishops shall take place within
three months, unless an inevitable necessity should some time require the
term of delay to be prolonged. And if he shall not do this, he shall be liable
to ecclesiastical penalties, and the income of the widowed church shall be
kept safe by the steward of the same Church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV

Let the ordination of bishops be within three months: necessity however
may make the time longer. But if anyone shall ordain counter to this
decree, he shall be liable to punishment. The revenue shall remain with the
oeconomus.

BRIGHT

The "Steward of the Church" was to "take care of the revenues of the
church widowed" by the death of its bishop, who was regarded as
representing Him to whom the whole Church was espoused (see Eph. 5:23
ff.). So in the "order of the holy and great church" of St. Sophia, the"
Great Steward is described as "taking the oversight of the widowed
church" (Goar, Eucholog., p. 269); so Hincmar says: "Si fuerit defunctus
episcopus, ego... visitaterem ipsi viduatae designabo ecclesiae;" and the
phrase, "viduata per mortem N. nuper episcopi" became common in the
West (F. G. Lee, Validity of English Orders, p. 373). The episcopal ring

703

was a symbol of the same idea. So at St. Chrysostom's restoration
Eudoxia claimed to have "given back the bridegroom" (Serm. post redit.,
iv.). So Bishop Wilson told Queen Caroline that he "would not leave his
wife in his old age because she was poor" (Keble's Life of Wilson, ii., 767);
and Peter Mongus, having invaded the Alexandrian see while its legitimate
occupant, Timothy Salophaciolus, was alive, was expelled as an
"adulterer" (Liberatus, Breviar., xviij.).

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
ParsL.Dist. LXXV., C. ij.

704

CANON XXVI

Forasmuch as we have heard that in certain churches the bishops
managed the church-business without stewards, it has seemed good that
every church having a bishop shall have also a steward from among its
own clergy, who shall manage the church business under the sanction of
his own bishop; that so the administration of the church may not be
without a witness; and that thus the goods of the church may not be
squandered, nor reproach be brought upon the priesthood; and if he [i.e.,
the Bishop] will not do this, he shall be subjected to the divine canons.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVI

The (Economus in all churches must be chosen from the clergy. And the
bishop who neglects to do this is not without blame.

BRIGHT

As the stream of offerings became fuller, the work of dispensing them
became more complex, until the archdeacons could no longer find time for
it, and it was committed to a special officer called "oeconomus" or steward
(Bingham, hi, 12, 1; Transl. of Fleury, iii., 120). So the Council of Gangra,
in the middle of the fourth century, forbids the church offerings to be
disposed of without consent of the bishop or of the person appointed, eiq
o'ikovouAocv evnoiiac, (canon viij.); and St Basil mentions the oeconomi
of his own church (Epist., xxiij . 1), and the tocuAou of the sacred goods"
of his brother's at Nyssa (ib., 225). And although Gregory Nazianzen

705

took credit to himself for declining to appoint a "stranger" to make an
estimate of the property which of right belonged to the church of
Constantinople, and in fact, with a strange confusion between personal
and official obligations, gave the go-by to the whole question (Carm. de
Vita sua, 1479 ff.), his successor, Nectarius, being a man of business, took
care to appoint a "church-steward"; and Chrysostom, on coming to the
see, examined his accounts, and found much superfluous expenditure
(Palladius, Dial, p. 19). Theophilus of Alexandria compelled two of the
Tall Brothers to undertake the oikovojjAoc of the Alexandrian church (Soc,
6:7); and in one of his extant directions observes that the clergy of Lyco
wish for another "oeconomus," and that the bishop has consented, in order
that the church-funds may be properly spent (Mansi, iii., 1257). At
Hippo St. Augustine had a "praepositus domus" who acted as
Church- steward (Possidius, Vit. August., xxiv.). Isidore of Pelusium
denounces Martinianus as a fraudulent "oeconomus," and requests Cyril
to appoint an upright one (Epist. ii., 127), and in another letter urges him
to put a stop to the dishonest greed of those who acted as stewards of the
same church (ib., 5:79). The records of the Council of Ephesus mention
the "oeconomus" of Constantinople, the "oeconomus" of Ephesus
(Mansi, iv., 1228-1398), and, the "oeconomus" of Philadelphia. According
to an extant letter of Cyril, the "oeconomi" of Perrha in Syria were
mistrusted by the clergy, who wished to get rid of them "and appoint
others by their own authority" (ib., vii., 321). Ibas of Edessa had been
complained of for his administration of church property; he was accused,
e.g., of secreting a jeweled chalice, and bestowing the church revenues, and
gold and silver crosses, on his brother and cousins; he ultimately
undertook to appoint "oeconomi" after the model of Antioch (Mansi, vii.,
201). Proterius, afterwards patriarch of Alexandria and a martyr for
Chalcedonian orthodoxy, was "oeconomus" under Dioscorus (ib., iv.,
1017), as was John Talaia, a man accused of bribery, under his successor
(Evag., iii., 12). There may have been many cases in which there was no
"oeconomus," or in which the management was in the hands of private
agents of the bishop, in whom the Church could put no confidence; and
the Council, having alluded to the office of "oeconomus" in canons ij. and
xxv., now observes that some bishops had been managing their church
property without "oeconomi," and thereupon resolves "that every church
which has a bishop shall also have an oeconomus" from among its own

706

clergy, to administer the property of the church under the direction of its
own bishop; so that the administration of the church property may not be
unattested, and thereby waste ensue, and the episcopate incur reproach."
Any bishop who should neglect to appoint such an officer should be
punishable under "the divine" (or sacred) "canons."

Nearly three years after the Council, Leo saw reason for requesting
Marcian not to allow civil judges, "novo exemplo," to audit the accounts
of "the oeconomi of the church of Constantinople," which ought,
"secundum traditum morem," to be examined by the bishop alone (Epist.
cxxxvij. 2). In after days the "great steward" of St. Sophia was always a
deacon; he was a conspicuous figure at the Patriarch's celebrations,
standing on the right of the altar, vested in alb and stole, and holding the
sacred fan (pirciSiov) his duty was to enter all incomings and outgoings of
the church's revenue in a charterlary, and exhibit it quarterly, or half
yearly, to the patriarchs; and he governed the church during a vacancy of
the see (Eucholog., pp. 268, 275). In the West, Isidore of Seville describes
the duties of the "oeconomus"; he has to see to the repair and building of
churches, the care of church lands, the cultivation of vineyards, the
payment of clerical stipends, of doles to the widows and the poor, and of
food and clothing to church servants, and even the carrying on of church
law suits, — all "cure jussu et arbitrio sui episcopi" (Ep. to Leudefred,
Op. ii., 520); and before Isidore's death the IV th Council of Toledo refers
to this canon, and orders the bishops to appoint "from their own clergy
those whom the Greeks call oeconomi, hoc est, qui vici episcoporum res
ecclesiasticas tractant (canon xlviij., Mansi, x, 631). There was an officer
named "oeconomus" in the old Irish monasteries; see Reeves' edition of
Adamnan, p. 47.

This Canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars II., Causa XVI., Q. VII, Canon xxi., and again in Pars I.,
Dist. LXXXIX., c. iv.

707

CANON XXVII.

The holy Synod has decreed that those who forcibly carry off women
under pretense of marriage, and the alders or abettors of such ravishers,
shall be degraded if clergymen, and if laymen be anathematized.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVII

If a clergyman elope with a woman, let him be expelled from the Church. If
a layman, let him be anathema. The same shall be the lot of any that assist
him.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXXVL, Q. II., canon j.

In many old collections this is the last canon of this Council, e.g.,
Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore, the Prisca, the Greek by John of Antioch, and
the Arabic by Joseph Aegyptius. The reader familiar with the subject will
have but little difficulty in explaining to his own satisfaction the omission
of canon xxviij. in these instances.

708

CANON xxvm

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and
acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred
and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of
Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor
Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same
things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of
Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted
privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And
the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same
consideration, gave equal privileges (igoc Ttpeapeia) to the most holy
throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with
the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old
imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is,
and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian
dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses
aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid
most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every
metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his
province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by
the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of
the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of
Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to
custom and have been reported to him.

709

NOTE.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVIII

The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honor as the bishop of Old
Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the
[metropolitans] ofPontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian
bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.

VAN ESPEN

It is certain that this canon was expressly renewed by canon 36:of the
Council of Trullo and from that time has been numbered by the Greeks
among the canons; and at last it was acknowledged by some Latin
collectors also, and was placed by Gratian in his Decretum, although
clearly with a different sense. (Pars I., Dist. xxii., C. vj.)

BRIGHT

Here is a great addition to the canon of 381, so ingeniously linked on to it
as to seem at first sight a part of it. The words koci coaxe are meant to
suggest that what follows is in fact involved in what has preceded:
whereas a new point of departure is here taken, and instead of a mere
"honorary pre-eminence" the bishop of Constantinople acquires a vast
jurisdiction, the independent authority of three exarchs being annulled in
order to make him patriarch. Previously he had TtpoeSpioc now he gains
7tpoaTocGioc As we have seen, a series of aggrandizements in fact had
prepared for this aggrandizement in law; and various metropolitans of Asia
Minor expressed their contentment at seeing it effected. "It is, indeed,
more than probable that the self-assertion of Rome excited the jealousy of
her rival of the East," and thus "Eastern bishops secretly felt that the

710

cause of Constantinople was theirs" (Gore's Leo the Great, p. 120); but
the gratification of Constantinople ambition was not the less, in a
canonical sense, a novelty, and the attempt to enfold it in the authority of
the Council of 381 was rather astute than candid. The true plea, whatever
might be its value, was that the Council had to deal with a. fait accompli,
which it was wise at once to legalize and to regulate; that the "boundaries
of the respective exarchates... were ecclesiastical arrangements made with a
view to the general good and peace of the Church, and liable to vary with
the dispensations to which the Church was providentially subjected," so
that "by confirming the £K noXXov KpocxfiaocveGoc; " in regard to the
ordination of certain metropolitans (see Ep. of Council to Leo, Leon. Epist.
xcviij., 4), "they were acting in the spirit, while violating the letter, of the
ever-famous rule of Nicaea, toc ocp%eioc e9r| Kpaxeixo (cp. Newman,
Transl. of Fleury, iii., 407). It is observable that Aristenus and Symeon,
Logothetes reckon this decree as a XXIXth canon (Justellus, ii., 694, 720).

After the renewal of this canon by the Council of Trullo, Gratian adds
"The VHIth Synod held under Pope Hadrian II., canon xxj." {Decretum
Pars I., Diet, xxij., C. vii.) "We define that no secular power shall hereafter
dishonor anyone of these who rule our patriarchal sees, or attempt to
move them from their proper throne, but shall judge them worthy of all
reverence and honor; chiefly the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and then
the Patriarch of Constantinople, and then those of Alexandria, and
Antioch, and Jerusalem."

Some Greek codices have the following heading to this canon.

"Decree of the same holy Synod published on account of the privileges of
the throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople."

TILLEMONT.

This canon seems to recognize no particular authority in the Church of
Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as the seat of the empire. And
it attributes in plain words as much to Constantinople as to Rome, with
the exception of the first place. Nevertheless I do not observe that the
Popes took up a thing so injurious to their dignity, and of so dangerous a

711

consequence to the whole Church. For what Lupus quotes of St. Leo's
lxxviij . (civ) letter, refers rather to Alexandria and to Antioch, than to
Rome. St. Leo is contented to destroy the foundation on which they built
the elevation of Constantinople, maintaining that a thing so entirely
ecclesiastical as the episcopate ought not to be regulated by the temporal
dignity of cities, which, nevertheless, has been almost always followed in
the establishment of the metropolis, according to the Council of Nicea.

St. Leo also complains that the Council of Chalcedon broke the decrees of
the Council of Nice, the practice of antiquity, and the rights of
Metropolitans. Certainly it was an odious innovation to see a Bishop
made the chief, not of one department but of three; for which no example
could be found save in the authority which the Popes took over Illyricum,
where, however, they did not claim the power to ordain any Bishop.

712

EXCURSUS ON THE LATER HISTORY OF CANON XXVIH

Among the bishops who gave their answers at the last session to the
question whether their subscription to the canons was voluntary or forced
was Eusebius, bishop of Doryloeum, an Asiatic bishop who said that he
had read the Constantinopolitan canon to "the holy pope of Rome in
presence of clerics of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it" (L. and
C, Cone, 4:815). But quite possibly this evidence is of little value. But
what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had
already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank
immediately after Rome. For at the very first session when the Acts of the
Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of
Constantinople, was given only the fifth place. Against this the bishop
protested and asked, "Why did not Flavian receive his position?" and the
papal legate Paschasinus answered: "We will, please God, recognize the
present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but
Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth." It would seem to be in vain to attempt
to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement
made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius
the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among
those of the Roman Code. It may well be that this statement was true, and
yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the
first session a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had
admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place. It would seem
that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the
Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.

It would be the height of absurdity for any one to attempt to deny that the
canon of Constantinople was entirely in force and practical execution, as
far of those most interested were concerned, long before the meeting of the
council of Chalcedon, and in 394, only thirteen years after the adoption of
the canon, we find the bishop of Constantinople presiding at a synod at
which both the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Antioch were
present.

St. Leo made, in connection with this matter, some statements which
perhaps need not be commented upon, but should certainly not be

713

forgotten. In his epistle to Anatolius (no. cvi.) in speaking of the third
canon of Constantinople he says: "That document of certain bishops has
never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the
Apostolic See." And in writing to the Empress (Ep. cv., ad Pulch.) he
makes the following statement, strangely contrary to what she at least
knew to be the fact, "To this concession a long course of years has given
no effect!"

We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviijth
canon of Chalcedon. It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to
see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel
and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its
encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that
it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene
decree.

Leo can never be charged with weakness. His rejection of the canon was
absolute and unequivocal. In writing to the Emperor he says that
Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he
should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of
Constantinople "an Apostolic See," and adds that "only from love of
peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith" he has "abstained
from annulling this ordination" (Ep. civ.).

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence: "As for the resolution
of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your
faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the
holy Apostle Peter" (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo
himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress
Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council
subscribed the xxviiith canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his
acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and
express his rejection of the canons. This part of the letter was left unread
throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos
(Ep. cxxvij.).

714

Leo never gave over his opposition, although the breach was made up
between him and Anatolius by an apparently insincere letter on the part of
the latter (Ep. cxxxii.). Leo's successors followed his example in rejecting
the canons, both the Hid of Constantinople and the XXVIIIth of
Chalcedon, but as M. l'abbe Duchesne so admirably says: "Mais leur voix
fut peu ecoutee; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure
ceremonie." But Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and
Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXIst Novel, (cap. j.), and
the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of
Chalcedon. Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the
Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the
Trullan Synod. And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in
its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople's rank as immediately after
Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins!
Subsequently at Florence the second rank, in accordance with the canons
of I. Constantinople and of Chalcedon (which had been an hulled by Leo)
was given to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and so the opposition
of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon
which Leo declared to be "inspired by the Holy Ghost" and "valid to the
end of time" (Ep. cvi.), was set at nought by Leo's successor in the
Apostolic See.

From the Acts of the same Holy Synod concerning Photius, Bishop of
Tyre, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus.

The most magnificent and glorious judges said:

What is determined by the Holy Synod [in the matter of the Bishops
ordained by the most religious Bishop Photius, but removed by the most
religious Bishop Eustathius and ordered to be Presbyters after (having
held) the Episcopate]?

The most religious Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the Priest
Boniface, representatives of the Church of Rome, said:

715

CANON XXK

It is sacrilege to degrade a bishop to the rank of a presbyter; but, if they
are for just cause removed from episcopal functions, neither ought they to
have the position of a Presbyter; and if they have been displaced without
any charge, they shall be restored to their episcopal dignity.

And Anatolius, the most reverend Archbishop of Constantinople, said: If
those who are alleged to have been removed from the episcopal dignity to
the order of presbyter, have indeed been condemned for any sufficient
causes, clearly they are not worthy of the honor of a presbyter. But if
they have been forced down into the lower rank without just cause, they
are worthy, if they appear guiltless, to receive again both the dignity and
priesthood of the Episcopate.

And all the most reverend Bishops cried out:

The judgment of the Fathers is right. We all say the same. The Fathers
have righteously decided. Let the sentence of the Archbishops prevail.

And the most magnificent and glorious judges said:

Let the pleasure of the Holy Synod be established for all time.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIX

He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank of a presbyter. For
he that is guilty of crime is unworthy of the priesthood. But he that was
deposed without cause, let him be [still] bishop.

716

What precedes and follows the so-called canon is abbreviated from the
IV th Session of the Council (L. and C, Cone, Tom. IV., col. 550). I have
followed a usual Greek method of printing it.

HEFELE

This so-called canon is nothing but a verbal copy of a passage from the
minutes of the fourth session in the matter of Photius of Tyre and
Eustathius of Berytus. Moreover, it does not possess the peculiar form
which we find in all the genuine canons of Chalcedon, and in almost all
ecclesiastical canons in general; on the contrary, there adheres to it a
portion of the debate, of which it is a fragment, in which Anatolius is
introduced as speaking. Besides it is wanting in all the old Greek, as well
as in the Latin collections of canons, and in those of John of Antioch and
of Photius, and has only been appended to the twenty-eight genuine
canons of Chalcedon from the fact that a later transcriber thought fit to add
to the genuine canons the general and important principle contained in the
place in question of the fourth session. Accordingly, this so-called canon is
certainly an ecclesiastical rule declared at Chalcedon, and in so far a kocvcov
but it was not added as a canon proper to the other twenty-eight by the
Synod.

From the Fourth Session of the same Holy Synod, having reference to the
matter of the Egyptian Bishops.

The most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:

717

CANON XXX

Since the most religious bishops of Egypt have postponed for the present
their subscription to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo, not
because they oppose the Catholic Faith, but because they declare that it is
the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do no such tiring without the
consent and order of their Archbishop, and ask to be excused until the
ordination of the new bishop of the metropolis of Alexandria, it has
seemed to us reasonable and kind that this concession should be made to
them, they remaining in their official habit in the imperial city until the
Archbishop of the Metropolis of Alexandria shall have been ordained.

And the most religious Bishop Paschasinus, representative of the
Apostolic throne for Rome], said:

If your authority suggests and commands that any indulgence be shewn to
them, let them give securities that they will not depart from this city until
the city of Alexandria receives a Bishop.

And the most magnificent and glorious judges, and the whole Senate, said:
Let the sentence of the most holy Paschasinus be confirmed.

And therefore let them [.i.e., the most religious Bishops of the Egyptians]
remain in their official habit, either giving securities, if they can, or being
bound by the obligation of an oath.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXX

It is the custom of the Egyptians that none subscribe without the permission
of their Archbishop. Wherefore they are not to be blamed who did not

718

subscribe the Epistle of the holy Leo until an Archbishop had been
appointed for them.

As in the case of the last so-called "canon" I have followed a usual Greek
method, the wording departs but little from that of the acts (Vide L. and
C, Cone, Tom. IV., co]. 517).

HEFELE

This paragraph, like the previous one, is not a proper canon, but a verbal
repetition of a proposal made in the fourth session by the imperial
commissioners, improved by the legate Paschasinus, and approved by the
Synod. Moreover, this so-called canon is not found in the ancient
collections, and was probably added to the twenty-eight canons in the
same manner and for the same reasons as the preceding.

BRIGHT

The council could insist with all plainness on the duty of hearing before
condemning (see on Canon XXIX.); yet on this occasion bishop after
bishop gave vent to harsh unfeeling absolutism, the only excuse for which
consists in the fact that the outrages of the Latrocinium were fresh in their
minds, and that three of the Egyptian supplicants, whom they were so
eager to terrify or crush, had actually supported Dioscorus on the tragical
August 8, 449. It was not in human nature to forget this; but the result is a
blot on the history of the Council of Chalcedon.

719

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 794.)

Paschasinus and Lucentius, the most reverend bishops, holding file place
of the Apostolic See, said: If your magnificence so orders, we have
something to lay before you.

The most glorious judges, said: Say what you wish. The most holy
Paschasinus the bishop, holding the place of Rome, said: The rulers of the
world, taking care of the holy Catholic faith, by which their kingdom and
glory is increased, have deigned to define this, in order that unity through a
holy peace may be preserved through all the churches. But with still
greater care their clemency has vouchsafed to provide for the future, so
that no contention may spring up again between God's bishops, nor any
schisms, nor any scandal. But yesterday after your excellencies and our
humility had left, it is said that certain decrees were made, which we
esteem to have been done contrary to the canons, and contrary to
ecclesiastical discipline. We request that your magnificence order these
things to be read, that all the brethren may know whether the things done
are just or unjust.

The most glorious judges said: If anything was done after our levering let it
be read.

And before the reading, Aetius, the Archdeacon of the Church of
Constantinople said: It is certain that the matters touching the faith
received a suitable form. But it is customary at synods, after those things
which are chiefest of all shall have been defined, that other flyings also
which are necessary should be examined and put into shape. We have, I
mean the most holy Church of Constantinople has, manifestly things to be
attended to. We asked the Lord bishops (icupion; xoi<; kmcKonoic,)

720

from Rome, to join with us in these matters, but they declined, saying
they had received no instructions on the subject. We referred the matter to
your magnificence and you bid the holy Synod to consider this very point.
And when your magnificence had gone forth, as the affair was one of
common interest, the most holy bishops, standing up, prayed that this
thing might be done. And they were present here, and this was done in no
hidden nor secret fashion, but in due course and in accordance with file
canons.

The most glorious judges said: Let the acts be read.

[The canon (number XXVIII.), was then read, and the signatures, in all
192, including the bishops ofAntioch, Jerusalem, and Heraclea, but not
Thaiassius of Caesarea who afterwards assented. Only a week before 350
had signed the Definition of faith. When the last name was read a debate
arose as follows. (Col. 810.).]

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said:
In the first place let your excellency notice that it was brought to pass by
circumventing the holy bishops so that they were forced to sign the as yet
unwritten canons, of which they made mention. [The Greek reads a little
differently (I have followed the Latin as it is supposed by the critics to be
more pure than the Greek we now have): Your excellency has perceived
how many firings were done in the presence of the bishops, in order that
no one might be forced to sign the aforementioned canons; defining by
necessity.]

The most reverend bishops cried out: No one was forced.

Lucentius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said:
It is manifest that the decrees of the 318 have been put aside, and that
mention only has been made of those of the 150, which are not found to
have any place in the synodical canons, and which were made as they
acknowledge eighty years ago. If therefore they enjoyed this privilege
during these years, what do they seek for now? If they never used it, why
seek it? [The Greek reads: "It is manifest that the present decrees have
been added to the decrees of the 318 and to those of the 150 after them,
decrees not received into the synodical canons, these things they pretend

721

to be defined. If therefore in these times they used this benefit what now
do they seek which according to the canons they had not used?]

Aetius, the archdeacon of the most holy Church of Constantinople, said: If
on this subject they had received any commands, let them be brought
forward.

Bonifacius, a presbyter and vicar of the Apostolic See, said: The most
blessed and Apostolic Pope, among other things, gave us this
commandment. And he read from the chart, "The rulings of the holy
fathers shall with no rashness be violated or diminished. Let the dignity of
our person in all ways be guarded by you. And if any, influenced by the
power of his own city, should undertake to make usurpations, withstand
this with suitable firmness."

The most glorious judges said: Let each party quote the canons.

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and representative, read: Canon Six
of the 318 holy fathers, "The Roman Church hath always had the
primacy. Let Egypt therefore so hold itself that the bishop of Alexandria
have the authority over all, for this is also the custom as regards the
bishop of Rome. So too at Antioch and in the other provinces let the
churches of the larger cities have the primacy. [In the Greek "let the
primacy be kept to the churches;" a sentence which I do not understand,
unless it means that for the advantage of the churches the primatial rights
of Antioch must be upheld. But such a sentiment one would expect to find
rather in the Latin than in the Greek] And one thing is abundantly clear,
that if any one shall have been ordained bishop contrary to the will of the
metropolitan, this great synod has decreed that such an one ought not to
be bishop. If however the judgment of all his own [fellows] is reasonable
and according to the canons, and if two or three dissent through their own
obstinacy, then let the vote of the majority prevail. For a custom has
prevailed, and it is an ancient tradition, that the bishop of Jerusalem be
honored, let him have his consequent honor, but the rights of his own
metropolis must be preserved."

Constantine, the secretary, read from a, book handed him by Aetius, the
archdeacon; Canon Six of the 318 holy Fathers. "Let the ancient customs
prevail, those of Egypt,

722

NOTES

An attempt has been made to shew that this statement of the acts is a
mere blunder. That no correct copy of the Nicene canons was read, and
that the council accepted the version produced by the Roman legate as
genuine. The proposition appears to me in itself ridiculous, and taken in
connection with the fact that the acts shew that the true canon of Nice was
read immediately afterwards I cannot think the hypothesis really worthy
of serious consideration. But it is most ably defended by the Ballerini in
their edition of St. Leo's works (Tom. iii., p. xxxvij. et seqq). and Hefele
seems to have accepted their conclusions (Vol. III., p. 435). Bright,
however, I think, takes a most just view of the case, whom I therefore
quote.

BRIGHT

If we place ourselves for a moment in the position of the ecclesiastics of
Constantinople when they heard Pasehasinus read his "version," which
the Ballerini gently describe as "differing a little" from the Greek text, we
shall see that it was simply impossible for them not to quote that text as it
was preserved in their archives, and had been correctly translated by Philo
and Evarestus in their version beginning "Antiqui mores obtineant." No
comment on the difference between it and the Roman "version" is recorded
to have been made: and, in truth, none was necessary. Simply to confront
the two, and pass on to the next point, was to confute so that the bishop
of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all, since this also is the custom
at Rome. Likewise at Antioch and in the rest of the provinces, let the rank
(Ttpeapeioc) be preserved to the churches. For this is absolutely clear that
if anyone contrary to the will of the metropolitan be ordained bishop, such
an one the great synod decreed should not be a bishop. If however by the
common vote of all, rounded upon reason, and according to the canons,

723

two or three moved by their own obstinacy, make opposition, let the vote
of the majority stand."

The same secretary read from the same codex the determination of the
Second Synod. "These things the bishops decreed who assembled by the
grace of God in Constantinople from far separated provinces,... and
bishops are not to go to churches which are outside the bounds of their
dioceses, nor to confound the churches, but according to the canons the
bishop of Alexandria shall take the charge of the affairs of Egypt only, and
the bishops of Orient shall govern the Oriental diocese only, the honors
due to the Church of Antioch being guarded according to the Nicene
canons, and the Asiatic bishops shall care for the diocese of Asia only, and
those of Pontus the affairs of Pontus only, and those of Thrace the affairs
of Thrace only. But bishops shall not enter uncalled another diocese for
ordination, or any other ecclesiastical function. And the aforesaid canon
concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every
province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was
decreed at Nice. But the churches of God in heathen nations must be
governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of
the Fathers. The bishop of Constantinople however shall have the
prerogative of honor next after the bishop of Rome, because
Constantinople is new Rome." Paschasinus at once most respectfully and
most expressively.

It should be added that the Ballerini ground their theory chiefly upon the
authority of a Latin MS., the Codex Julianus, now called Parisiensis, in
which this reading of the true text of the canon of Nice is not contained, as
Baluzius was the first to point out.

The most glorious judges said: Let the most holy Asiatic and Pontic
bishops who have signed the tome just read say whether they gave their
signatures of their own judgment or compelled by any necessity. And
when these were come into the midst, the most reverend Diogenes, the
bishop of Cyzicum, said: I call God to witness that I signed of my own
judgment. [And so on, one after the other.]

The rest cried out: We signed willingly.

724

The most glorious judges said: As it is manifest that the subscription of
each one of the bishops was given without any necessity but of his own
will, let the most holy bishops who have not signed say something.

Eusebius, the bishop of Ancyra, said: I am about to speak but for myself
alone.

[His speech is a personal explanation of his own action with regard to
consecrating a bishop for Gangra.]

The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought
forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all (npb tc&vtcov toc
TtpcoTeioc) and the chief honor(xf|V e^aipexov xi(j,r|v) according to the
canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome,
but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople,
which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honor of the same primacy, and to
have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and
Thracian dioceses, in this manner: that there be elected by the clergy, and
substantial (icnycopcov) and most distinguished men of each metropolis
and moreover by all the most reverend bishops of the province, or a
majority of them, and that he be elected whom those afore mentioned shall
deem worthy of the metropolitan episcopate and that he should be
presented by all those who had elected him to the most holy archbishop of
royal Constantinople, that he might be asked whether he [i.e., the Patriarch
of Constantinople] willed that he should there be ordained, or by his
commission in the province where he received the vote to the episcopate.
The most reverend bishops of the ordinary towns should be ordained by
all the most reverend bishops of the province or by a majority of them, the
metropolitan having his power according to the established canon of the
fathers, and making with regard to such ordinations no communications to
the most holy archbishop of royal Constantinople. Thus the matter
appears to us to stand. Let the holy Synod vouchsafe to teach its view of
the case.

The most reverend bishops cried out: This is a just sentence. So we all
say, These things please us all. This is a just determination. Establish the
proposed form of decree. This is a just vote. All has been decreed as
should be. We beg you to let us go. By the safety of the Emperor let us go.
We all will remain in this opinion, we all say the same things.

725

Lucentius, the bishop, said: The Apostolio See gave orders that all things
should be done in our presence [This sentence reads in the Latin: The
Apostolic See ought not to be humiliated in our presence. / do not know
why Canon Bright in his notes on Canon XX VIII. has followed this
reading]; and therefore whatever yesterday was done to the prejudice of
the canons during our absence, we beseech your highness to command to
be rescinded. But if not, let our opposition be placed in the minutes, and
pray let us know clearly [Lat. that we may know] what we are to report
to that most apostolic bishop who is the ruler of the whole church, so that
he may be able to take action with regard to the indignity done to his See
and to the setting at naught of the canons.

[John, the most reverend bishop of Sebaste, said: We all will remain of the
opinion expressed by your magnificence.]

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we
proposed.

NOTES

HEFELE

(Hist. Counc, Vol. III., p. 428.)

That is, the prerogative assigned to the Church of Constantinople is, in
spite of the opposition of the Roman legate decreed by the Synod. Thus
ended the Council of Chalcedon after it had lasted three weeks.

How it is possible after reading the foregoing proceedings to imagine for an
instant that the bishops of this Council considered the rights they were
discussing to be of Divine origin, and that the occupant of the See of Rome
was, jure divine, supreme over all pontiffs I cannot understand. It is quite
possible, of course, to affirm, as some have done, that the acts, as we have
them, have been mutilated, but the contention involves not only many
difficulties but also no few absurdities; and yet I cannot but think that
even this extreme hypothesis is to be preferred to any attempt to reconcile

726

the acts as we now have them with the acceptance on the part of the
members of the council of the doctrine of a jure divine Papal Supremacy as
it is now held by the Latin Church.

727

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

A.D. 553.

Emperor. — Justinian I.
Pope. — Vigilius.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

Excursus on the genuineness of the Acts of the Council.

The Emperor's Letter.

Extracts from the Acts, Session VII.

The Sentence of the Synod.

The Capitula of the Council.

Excursus on the XV. Anathematisms against Oripen.

The Anathemas against Origen paralleled with the Anathematisms of the

Emperor Justinian.

Historical Note to the Decretal Letter of Pope Vigilius.

The Decretal Letter of the Pope, with Introductory Note.

Historical Excursus on the after-history of the Council.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 289.)

728

In accordance with the imperial command, but without the assent of the
Pope, the synod was opened on the 5th of May A.D. 553, in the
Secretarium of the Cathedral Church at Constantinople. Among those
present were the Patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople, who presided,
Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, three bishops as
representatives of the Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem, and 145 other
metropolitans and bishops, of whom many came also in the place of
absent colleagues.

(Bossuet, Def. Cleri Gall, Lib. vii., cap. 19:Abridged. Translation by
Allies.)

The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas
of Edessa to Maris the Persian. They examined whether that letter had
been approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was admitted that it
had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius, had
been received by the holy Council. Some contended that his person only
was spared; others that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was
made at the fifth Council how the writings on the Faith were wont to be
approved in former Councils. The Acts of the third and fourth Council,
those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and
of St. Leo, were set forth. Then the holy Council declared: "It is plain,
from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to
approve what is brought before them. For great as was the dignity of those
holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their
letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognizance that they
were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy
Fathers, with which they were compared." But the Acts proved that this
course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred,
therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved. So, then, it
is certain from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and
understanding it, that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was
that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by
the holy Councils not simply, nor without inquiry. The holy Fathers
proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they
undertaken the examination of Ibas's letter. They compare the letter with
the Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Which done, the holy Council

729

declared — "The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter
which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the
definition of the right Faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth." All
the Bishops cried out. "We all say this; the letter is heretical." Thus,
therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council, that our holy Fathers in
Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or
heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, and that on matter of Faith, to be
orthodox or heretical, according to the same procedure, after legitimate
cognizance, the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon
these premises judgment given.

What! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds equally inclined
to both parties? Indeed, we have said, and shall often repeat, that there
was a presumption in favor of the decrees of orthodox Pontiffs; but in
Ecumenical Councils, where judgment is to be passed in matter of Faith,
that they were bound no longer to act upon presumption, but on the truth
clearly and thoroughly ascertained.

Such were the Acts of the fifth Council. This it learnt from the third and
fourth Councils, and approved; and in this argument we have brought at
once in favor of our opinion the decrees of three Ecumenical Councils, of
Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and the second Constantinopolitan. The Emperor
Justinian desired that the question concerning the above-mentioned Three
Chapters should be considered in the Church. He therefore sent for Pope
Vigilius to Constantinople. There he not long after assembled a council. He
and the Orientals thought it of great moment that these Chapters should be
condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising their heads to defend
them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared let this occasion should be
taken to destroy the authority of the Council of Chalcedon: because it was
admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been received in that Council, whilst
Theodore, though named, was let go without any mark of censure. Though
then both parties easily agreed as to the substance of the Faith, yet the
question had entirely respect to the Faith, it being feared by the one party
lest the Nestorian, by the other lest the Eutychian, enemies of the Council
of Chalcedon should prevail. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his
"Judicatum" against the Three Chapters, saving the authority of the
Council of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and
Dalmatia, with two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from his

730

communion. In the year 550 the African Bishops, under Reparatus of
Carthage, not only reject the Judicatum, but anathematize Vigilius himself,
and sever him from Catholic Communion, reserving to him a place for
repentance. At length the Pope publicly withdraws his "Judicatum."
While the Council is sitting at Constantinople he publishes his
"Constitutum," in which he condemns certain propositions of Theodore,
but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with respect to
Ibas, he declares that his letter was pronounced orthodox by the Council
of Chalcedon. However this may be, so much is clear, that Vigilius, though
invited, declined being present at the council: that nevertheless the council
was held without him; that he published a "Constitutum," in which he
disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas were said to have
written against the Faith; but decreed that their names should be spared
because they were considered to have been received by the fourth Council,
or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be reserved to the
judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he published the following,
that, "understood in the best and most pious sense," it was blameless; and
concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered that after his present
declaration ecclesiastics should move no further question.

Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority with which he
was invested. But the council, after his Constitution, both raised a
question about the Three Chapters, and decided that question was
properly raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was
manifestly heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the Faith
of Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the
impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against
Cyril, or the impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius: and
all such as did not anathematize it, but said it was correct.

In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius, although they
did not mention his name. And it is certain their decree was confirmed by
Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great, and other Roman Pontiffs. These
things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the
whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred
councils prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas,
though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless
be proscribed as heretical.

731

EXCURSUS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACTS OF THE

FIFTH COUNCIL

Some suspicion has arisen with regard to how far the acts of the Fifth
Ecumenical Council may be relied upon. Between the Roman Manuscript
printed by Labbe and the Paris manuscript found in Mansi there are
considerable variations and, strange to say, some of the most injurious
things to the memory of Pope Vigilius are found only in the Paris
manuscript. Moreover we know that the manuscript kept in the
patriarchal archives at Constantinople had been tampered with during the
century that elapsed before the next Ecumenical Synod, for at that council
the forgeries and interpolations were exposed by the Papal Legates.

At the XlVth Session of that synod the examination of the genuineness of
the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople was resumed. It had been
begun at the Xllth Session. Up to this time only two MSS. had been used,
now the librarian of the patriarchate presented a third MS. which he had
found in the archives, and swore that neither himself nor any other so far
as he knew had made any change in these MSS. These were then compared
and it was found that the two first agreed in containing the pretended letter
of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, and the two writings addressed by Vigilius to
Justinian and Theodora; but that none of these were found in the third
MS. It was further found that the documents in dispute were in a different
hand from the rest of the MS, and that in the first book of the parchment
MS., three quarternions had been inserted, and in the second book between
quarternions 15 and 16, four unpaged leaves had been placed. So too the
second MS. had been tampered with. The council inserted these
particulars in a decree, and ordered that "these additions must be quashed
in both MSS., and marked with an obelus, and the falsifiers must be
smitten with anathema." Finally the council cried out, "Anathema to the
pretended letters of Mennas and Vigilius! Anathema to the forger of Acts!
Anathema to all who teach, etc."

732

From all this it would seem that the substantial accuracy of the rest of the
acts have been established by the authority of the Sixth Synod, and Hefele
and all recent scholars follow Mansi's Paris MS.

It may be well here to add that a most thorough-going attack upon the acts
has been made in late years by Professor Vincenzi, in defense of Pope
Vigilius and of Origen. The reader is referred to his writings on the subject:
In Sancti Gregorii Nysseni et Originis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio;
Vigil, Orig., Justin, triumph., in Synod V. (Romae, 1865.) The Catholic
Dictionary frankly says that this is "an attempt to deny the most patent
facts, and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries," and "unworthy
of serious notice."

733

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 419.)

[The Emperor's Letter which was read to the Fathers.]

In the Name of our Lord God Jesus Christ. The Emperor Flavius
Justinian, German, Gothic, etc., and always Augustus, to the most blessed
bishops and patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinarius of
Alexandria, Domninus of Theopolis, Stephen, George, and Damian, the
most religious bishops taking the place of that man of singular blessedness,
Eustochius, the Archbishop and Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the other most
religious bishops stopping in this royal city from the different provinces.

[The following is the letter condensed, including Hefele's digest. History
of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 298.]

The effort of my predecessors, the orthodox Emperors, ever aimed at the
settling of controversies which had arisen respecting the faith by the
calling of Synods. For this cause Constantine assembled 318 Fathers at
Nice, and was himself present at the Council, and assisted those who
confessed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father. Theodosius, 150
at Constantinople, Theodosius the younger, the Synod of Ephesus, the
Emperor Marcian, the bishops at Chalcedon. As, however, after Marcian's
death, controversies respecting the Synod of Chalcedon had broken out in
several places, the Emperor Leo wrote to all bishops of all places, in order
that everyone might declare his opinion in writing with regard to this holy
Council. Soon afterwards, however, had arisen again the adherents of
Nestorius and Eutyches, and caused great divisions, so that many
Churches had broken off communion with one another. When, now, the
grace of God raised us to the throne, we regarded it as our chief business to
unite the Churches again, and to bring the Synod of Chalcedon, together

734

with the three earlier, to universal acceptance. We have won many who
previously opposed that Synod; others, who persevered in their
opposition, we banished, and so restored the unity of the Church again.
But the Nestorians want to impose their heresy upon the Church; and, as
they could not use Nestorius for that purpose, they made haste to
introduce their errors through Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of
Nestorius, who taught still more grievous blasphemies than his. He
maintained, e.g., that God the Word was one, and Christ another. For the
same purpose they made use of those impious writings of Theodoret
which were directed against the first Synod of Ephesus, against Cyril and
his Twelve Chapters, and also the shameful letter which Ibas is said to
have written. They maintain that this letter was accepted by the Synod of
Chalcedon, and so would free from condemnation Nestorius and Theodore
who were commended in the letter. If they were to succeed, the Logos
could no longer be said to be "made man," nor Mary called the Mother
(genetrix) of God. We, therefore, following the holy Fathers, have first
asked you in writing to give your judgment on the three impious chapters
named, and you have answered, and have joyfully confessed the true faith.
Because, however, after the condemnation proceeding from you, there are
still some who defend the Three Chapters, therefore we have summoned
you to the capital, that you may here, in common assembly, place again
your view in the light of day. When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old
Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly
anathematized in writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his
steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his
deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his
own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematized the
Three Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not
only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the Three
Chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian,
bishop of Aries, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum.
When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged
between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had
altered his view would no longer have a synod, but required that only the
three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and
the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent
several commands to him to take part in the synod. He rejected also our

735

two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller
assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other
patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of
his diocese. * We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the
four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius,
Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose,
Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine,
Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics
are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their
impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Synod
of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious
writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was
brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each
synod with those who had so held or did so hold; and we further exhort
you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his
blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also
what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will thence
see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore
his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of
Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be
anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in
this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only
living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died
in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they
restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs;
which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both
of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover we exhort you to examine
the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the
incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression "Mother of God" and
the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore
and Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of
Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of
this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter.
Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked
concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does
nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on
things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he

736

who is the more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God.
May God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years.
Given IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the xxviith year of the
reign of the imperial Lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in the
xiith year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil.

737

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION VII.

(From the Paris manuscript found in Hardouin Concilia, Tom. III., 171 et
seqq.; Mansi, Tom. ix., 346 et seqq. This speech is not found in full in any
other MS. The Ballerini [ Hefele notes] raise objections to the genuineness
of the additions [in Noris. Opp., Tom. IV., 1037], but Hefele does not
consider the objections of serious moment. [Hist, of the Councils, Vol. IV.,
p. 323, note 2.] All the MSS. agree that The most glorious quaester of the
sacred palace, Constantine, was sent by the most pious Emperor, and
when he had entered the Council spake as follows: "Certum est vestrae
beatitudini, quantum, etc." The rest of the speech differs in the different
manuscripts. I follow that of Paris.)

You know how much care the most invincible Emperor has always had
that the contention raised up by certain persons with regard to the Three
Chapters should have a termination.... For this intent he has required the
most religious Vigilius to assemble with you and draw up a decree on this
matter in accordance with the Orthodox faith. Although therefore, Vigilius
has already frequently condemned the Three Chapters in writing, and has
done this also by word of mouth in the presence of the Emperor, and of
the most glorious judges and of many members of this synod, and has
always been ready to smite with anathema the defenders of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and the letter which was attributed to Ibas, and the writings
of Theodoret which be set forth against the orthodox faith and against the
twelve capitula of the holy Cyril: yet he has refused to do this in
communion with you and your synod.

Yesterday Vigilius sent Servus Dei, a most reverend Subdeacon of the
Roman Church, and invited Belisarius, Cethegus, as also Justinus and
Constantine the most glorious consuls, as well as bishops Theodore,
Ascidas, Benignus, and Phocas, to come to him as he wished to give
through them an answer to the Emperor. They came, but speedily returned

738

and informed the most pious Lord, that we had visited Vigilius, the most
religious bishop, and that he had said to us: "We have called you for this
reason, that you may know what things have been done in the past days.
To this end I have written a document about the disputed Three Chapters,
addressed to the most pious Emperor, pray be good enough to read it, and
to carry it to his Serenity." But when we had heard this and had seen the
document written to your serenity, we said to him that we could not by
any means receive any document written to the most pious Emperor
without his bidding. "But you have deacons for running with messages, by
whom you can send it." He, however, said to us: "You now know that I
have made the document." But we, bishops, answered him: "If your
blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy
Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three
Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox
faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils
have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a farmer and primate. But if
your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have
errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them." And when he had heard
these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits
the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he
commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the
before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious
Vigilius: "We invited him (you) to meet together with the most blessed
patriarchs and other religious bishops, and with them in common to
examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do
this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on
the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with
those things which you did before, we have already many such statements
and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to
these things which were done by you before, you have condemned
yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox
doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to
receive such a document from you?"

And when this answer was given by the most pious Emperor, he did not
send through the same deacon any document in writing from himself. And
all this was done without writing as also to your blessedness.

739

[He then, according to all the MSS., presented certain documents to be
read, in the MS. printed by Labbe and Cossart, Tom. V., col. 549 et seqq.
These are fewer than in the Paris MS., which last also contains the
following just after the reading of the documents and after the Council had
declared that they proved the Emperor's zeal for the faith.]

Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, said: While I am still present at
your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have
been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent
a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius,
that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account
of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor
retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which
are intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by
God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive
by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy
churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.

[The letter was then read.]

The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious Emperor is
congruous to the labors which he bears for the unity of the churches. Let
us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the most holy Church of
ancient Rome, carrying out all things according to the tenor of what has
been read. De proposita vero quaestione quod jam promisimus procedat.

NOTES

Hefele understands that the Council heard and approved this letter of the
Emperor's, but that the "Emperor did not mean entirely to break off
communion with the Apostolic see, neither did he wish the Synod to do
so" (Hist. Councils, Vol. IV., p. 326), as indeed he says in his letter.

The Ballerini consider this letter of the Emperor's to be spurious, but
(says Hefele) "on insufficient grounds" (1. c, p. 326, note 3). The
expressions used by the Emperor may not unnaturally be somewhat

740

startling to those holding the theological position of the Ballerini: "We will
not endure to receive the spotless communion from him nor from any one
else who does not condemn this impiety... lest we be found thus
communicating with the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore." It is
noteworthy that the Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of
the reigning Pope from the diptychs as a father of heresy; and that the
Sixth Ecumenical Synod should anathematize another Pope as a heretic!

741

THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD

{From the Acts. Collation VIIL, L. and C, Cone, Tom. V., col. 562.)

Our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, as we learn from the parable in
the Gospel, distributes talents to each man according to his ability, and at
the fitting time demands an account of the work done by every man. And
if he to whom but one talent has been committed is condemned because he
has not worked with it but only kept it without loss, to how much greater
and more horrible judgment must he be subject who not only is negligent
concerning himself, but even places a stumbling-block and cause of offense
in the way of others? Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever
any question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man himself
is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to correct impiety
in others, neglects to do so.

We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church of the
Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who negligently perform
the Lord's work, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the
tares of impiety which are being sown by the enemy.

When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were attempting
to introduce their impiety into the church of God through the impious
Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his impious
writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret impiously
wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to have been written
by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these sights we rose up for the
correction of what was going on, and assembled in this royal city called
thither by the will of God and the bidding of the most religious Emperor.

And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this
royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three
Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing,
nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the
Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable
definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most

742

pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted
both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood
should after common discussion impose a common faith. On this account
we besought his reverence to fulfill his written promises; for it was not
right that tile scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any
further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby. And to this end we
brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles,
and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit
abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the
counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing
to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the
Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own
several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to
the Gentiles: "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay
upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,
and from fornication."

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four
holy councils, following the example of tile ancients, have by a common
discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which
had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion
when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth
expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when
there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of
his neighbor, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: "A brother helping
his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a
well-founded kingdom;" and again in Ecclesiastes he says: "Two are better
than one; because they have a good reward for their labor."

So also the Lord himself says: "Verily I say unto you that if two of you
shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall
have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

743

But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most glorious
judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor, he promised to
give sentence himself on the Three Chapters (sententiam prof err e): And
when we heard this answer, having the Apostle's admonition in mind, that
"each one must, give an account of himself to God" and fearing the
judgment that hangs over those who scandalize one, even of the least
important, and knowing how much sorer it must be to give offense to so
entirely Christian an Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches;
and further recalling what was said by God to Paul: "Fear not, but speak,
and be not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee." Therefore,
being gathered together, before all things we have briefly confessed that we
hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his
holy Apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they
who after thorn were holy fathers and doctors, handed down to the people
credited to them.

We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that
confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at length set forth,
who were gathered together at Nice, who handed down the holy mathema
or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together at Constantinople set forth
our faith, who followed that same confession of faith and explained it. And
the consent of fire 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first
Council of Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at
Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed and
taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned or
anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid four Councils,
we confessed that we hold them condemned and anathematized. And when
we had thus made profession of our faith we began the examination of the
Three Chapters, and first we brought into review the matter of Theodore
of Mopsuestia; and when all the blasphemies contained in his writings
were made manifest, we marveled at the long-suffering of God, that the
tongue and mind which had framed such blasphemies were not
immediately consumed by the divine fire; and we never would have
suffered the reader of the aforenamed blasphemies to proceed, fearing [as
we did] the indignation of God for their record alone (as each blasphemy
surpassed its predecessor in the magnitude of its impiety and moved from
its foundation the mind of the hearer) had it not been that we saw they

744

who gloried in such blasphemies stood in need of the confusion which
would come upon them through their manifestation. So that all of us,
moved with indignation by these blasphemies against God, both during
and after the reading, broke forth into denunciations and anathematisms
against Theodore, as if he had been living and present. O Lord be merciful,
we cried, not even devils have dared to utter such things against thee.

O intolerable tongue! O the depravity of the man! O that high hand he
lifted up against his Creator! For the wretched man who had promised to
know the Scriptures, had no recollection of the words of the Prophet
Ho sea, "Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: they are become
famous because they were impious as touching me; they spake iniquities
against me, and when they had thought them out, they spake the violent
things against me. Therefore shall they fall in the snare by reason of the
wickedness of their own tongues. Their contempt shall turn into their own
bosom: because they have transgressed my covenant and have acted
impiously against my laws."

To these curses the impious Theodore is justly subject. For the
prophecies concerning Christ he rejected and hastened to destroy, so far as
he had the power, the great mystery of the dispensation for our salvation;
attempting in many ways to show the divine words to be nothing but
fables, for the mirth of the gentiles, and spurned the other prophetic
announcements made against the impious, especially that which the divine
Habacuc said of those who teach falsely, "Woe unto him that giveth his
neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and makest him drunken that
thou mayest look on their nakedness," that is, their doctrines full of
darkness and altogether foreign to the light.

And why should we add anything further? For anyone can take in his
hands the writings of the impious Theodore or the impious chapters which
from his impious writings were inserted by us in our acts, and find the
incredible foolishness and the detestable things which he said. For we are
afraid to proceed further and again to remember these infamies.

There was also read to us what had been written by the holy Fathers
against him, and his foolishness which exceeded that of all heretics, and
moreover the histories and the imperial laws, setting forth his impiety
from the beginning, and since after all these things the defenders of his

745

impiety, glorying in the injuries uttered by him against his Creator, said
that it was not right to anathematize him after death, although we knew
the ecclesiastical tradition concerning the impious, that even after death,
heretics are anathematized; nevertheless we thought it necessary
concerning this also to make examination, and there were found in the acts
how divers heretics had been anathematized after death; and in many ways
it was manifest to us that those who were saying this cared nothing for the
judgment of God, nor for the Apostolic announcements, nor for the
tradition of the Fathers. And we would like to ask them what they have to
say to the Lord's having said of himself: "Whosoever should have believed
in him, is not judged: but who should not have believed in him is judged
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son
of God," and of that exclamation of the Apostle: Although we or an angel
from heaven were to preach to you another gospel than that we have
preached unto you, let him be anathema: as we have said, so now I say
again, If anyone preach to you another gospel than that you have received,
let him be anathema."

For when the Lord says: "he is judged already," and when the Apostle
anathematizes even angels, if they teach anything different from what we
have preached, how can even those who dare all things, presume to say
that these words refer only to the living? or are they ignorant, or is it not
rather that they feign to be ignorant, that the judgment of anathema is
nothing else than that of separation from God? For the impious person,
although he may not have been verbally anathematized by anyone,
nevertheless he really is anathematized, having separated himself from the
true life by his impiety.

For what have they to answer to the Apostle again when he says, "A man
that is an heretic reject after the first and second corrections. Knowing that
such a man is perverse, and sins, and is condemned by himself."

In accordance with which words Cyril of blessed memory, in the books
which he wrote against Theodore, says as follows: They are to be avoided
who are in the grasp of such awful crimes whether they be among the
quick or not. For it is necessary always to flee from that which is hurtful,
and not to have respect of persons, but to consider what is pleasing to
God. And again the same Cyril of holy memory, writing to John, bishop

746

of Antioch, and to the synod assembled in that city concerning Theodore
who was anathematized together with Nestorius, says thus: It was
therefore necessary to keep a brilliant festival, since every voice which
agreed with the blasphemies of Nestorius had been cast out no matter
whose. For it proceeded against all those who held these same opinions or
had at one time held them, which is exactly what we and your holiness
have said: We anathematize those who say that there are two Sons and
two Christs. For one is he who is preached by us and you, as we have
said, Christ, the Son and Lord, only begotten as man, according to the
saying of the most learned Paul. And also in his letter to Alexander and
Martinian and John and Paregorius and Maximus, presbyters and monastic
fathers, and those who with them were leading the solitary life, he so says:
The holy synod of Ephesus, gathered together according to the will of God
against the Nestorian perfidy with a just and keen sentence condemned
together with him the empty words of those who afterwards should
embrace or who had in time past embraced the same opinions with him,
and who presumed to say or write any such thing, laying upon them an
equal condemnation. For it followed naturally that when one was
condemned for such profane emptiness of speech, the sentence should not
come against one only, but (so to speak) against every one of their heresies
or calumnies, which they utter against the pious doctrines of the Christ,
worshipping two Sons, and dividing the indivisible, and bringing in the
crime of man- worship (anthropolatry), both into heaven and earth. For
with us the holy multitude of the supernal spirits adore one Lord Jesus
Christ. Moreover several letters of Augustine, of most religious memory,
who shone forth resplendent among the African bishops, were read,
shewing that it was quite right that heretics should be anathematized after
death. And this ecclesiastical tradition, the other most reverend bishops of
Africa have preserved: and the holy Roman Church as well had
anathematized certain bishops after their death, although they had not
been accused of any falling from the faith during their lives: and of each we
have the evidence in our hands.

But since the disciples of Theodore and of his impiety, who are so
manifestly enemies of the truth, have attempted to bring forward certain
passages of Cyril of holy memory and of Proclus, as though they had been
written in favor of Theodore, it is opportune to fit to them the words of

747

the prophet when he says: "The ways of the Lord are right and the just
walk therein; but the wicked shall be weak in them." For these, evilly
receiving the fixings which have been well and opportunely written by the
holy Fathers, and making excuses in their sins, quote these words. The
fathers do not appear as delivering Theodore from anathema, but rather as
economically using certain expressions on account of those who defended
Nestorius and his impiety, in order to draw them away from this error,
and to lead them to perfection and to teach them to condemn not only
Nestorius, the disciple of the impiety, but also his teacher Theodore. So in
these very words of economy the Fathers shew their intention on tiffs
point, that Theodore should be anathematized, as has been abundantly
demonstrated by us in our acts from the writings of Cyril and Proclus of
holy memory with regard to the condemnation of Theodore and his
impiety. And such economy is found in divine Scripture: and it is evident
that Paul the Apostle made use of this in the beginning of his ministry, in
relation to those who had been brought up as Jews, and circumcised
Timothy, that by this economy and condescension he might lead them on
to perfection. But afterwards he forbade circumcision, writing thus to the
Galatians: "Behold, I Paul say to you, that if ye be circumcised Christ
profiteth you nothing." But we found that that which heretics were wont
to do, the defenders of Theodore had done also. For cutting out certain of
the things which the holy Fathers had written, and placing with them and
mixing up certain false things of their own, they have tried by a letter of
Cyril of holy memory as though from a testimony of the Fathers, to free
from anathema the aforesaid impious Theodore: in which very passages
the truth was demonstrated, when the parts which had been cut off were
read in their proper order, and the falsehood was thoroughly evinced by
the collation of the true. But in all these things, they who spake such
vanities, "trusted in falsehood," as it is written, "they trust in falsehood,
and speak vanity; they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity, weaving the
spider's web." When we had thus considered Theodore and his impiety,
we took care to have re cited and inserted in our acts a few of these things
which had been impiously written by Theodoret against the right faith and
against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and against the First Council of
Ephesus, also certain things written by him in defense of those impious
ones Theodore and Nestorius, for the satisfaction of the reader; that all
might know that these had been justly cast out and anathematized. In the

748

third place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris
the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that it,
too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety was
manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation and
anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters, as even to this time there
had been some question on the subject. But because the defenders of these
impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or
other to confirm these persons and their impiety, and were saving that this
impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and
their impiety, had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we
thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impiety
which was contained in that letter, that it might be clear that they who say
such things do not do so with the favor of this holy council, but that
through its name they may confirm their own impiety. And it was shewn
in the acts that in former times Ibas had been accused because of the very
impiety which is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy
memory, the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of
pious memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to
Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius, bishop of
Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot. Afterwards the
same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his bishopric. Such was the
state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious
letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy
council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout? Nevertheless in order that
they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no
further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of
the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to
the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory,
sometime Pope of Old Rome. And since we had learned from these that
nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been
proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we
interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith
which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might
compare the things in the epistle with this decree. And when this was
done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly
opposite to those of the definition.

749

For the definition agreed with the one and unchanging faith set forth as
well by the 318 holy Fathers as by the 150 and by those who assembled
at the first synod at Ephesus. But that impious letter, on the other hand,
contained the blasphemies of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, and
defended them, and calls them doctors, while it calls the holy Fathers
heretics.

And this we made manifest to all, that we did not have any intention of
omitting the Fathers of the first and second interlocutions, which the
followers of Theodore and Nestorius cited on their side, but these and all
the others having been read and their contents examined, we found that the
aforesaid Ibas was not allowed to be received without being compelled to
anathematize Nestorius and his impious teachings, which were defended in
that epistle. And this the rest of the religious bishops of the aforesaid holy
Council did as well as those two whose interlocutions certain tried to use.

For this they observed in the case of Theodoret, and required him to
anathematize those things of which he was accused. If therefore they were
willing to allow the reception of Ibas in no other manner unless he
condemned the impiety which was contained in his letters, and subscribed
the definition of faith adopted by the Council, how can they attempt to
make out that this impious letter was received by the same holy council?
For we are taught, "What fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And
what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth
with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols."

Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we
receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan,
the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have taught, and do
teach all that they defined respecting the one faith. And we account those
who do not receive these things aliens from the Catholic Church.
Moreover we condemn and anathematize, together with all the other
heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the
before-mentioned four holy Synods, and by the holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church, Theodore who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his
impious writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote
against the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril,

750

and against the first Synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in
defense of Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to these we also
anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written to
Maris, the Persian, which denies that God the Word was incarnate of the
holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and accuses Cyril of holy
memory, who taught the truth, as an heretic, and of the same sentiments
with Apollinaris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus as deposing
Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters
of the holy Cyril impious, and contrary to the right faith, and defends
Theodoras and Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We
therefore anathematize the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the
impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those
things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is
said to be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have written or do
write in defense of them, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who
have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the
holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon. These things therefore
being settled with all accuracy, we, bearing in remembrance the promises
made respecting the holy Church, and who it was that said that the gates
of hell should not prevail against her, that is, the deadly tongues of
heretics; remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by Hosea,
saying, "I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know
the Lord," and numbering together with the devil, the father of lies, the
unbridled tongues of heretics who persevered in their impiety unto death,
and their most impious writings, will say to them, "Behold, all ye kindle a
fire, and cause the flame of the fire to grow strong, ye shall walk in the
light of your fire, and the flame which ye kindle." But we, having a
commandment to exhort the people with right doctrine, and to speak to
the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the Church of God, do rightly make haste to
sow in righteousness, and to reap the fruit of life; and kindling for
ourselves the light of knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine
of the Fathers, we have considered it necessary to comprehend in certain
Capitula, both the declaration of the truth, and the condemnation of
heretics, and of their wickedness.

751

THE CAPITULA OF THE COUNCIL

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)

I.

If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if
anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be
worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For
there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord
Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are
all things.

n.

If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the
one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the
other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of
the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born
of her: let him be anathema.

m.

If anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person]
and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was
with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but
that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of
his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person] : let him
be anathema.

752

IV.

If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only
according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honor, or authority,
or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense
that God the Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved
him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone
pretends that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is
concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God
Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and of
Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating
disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his
honor, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as
the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the
flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made
synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one
Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be
anathema. As a matter of fact the word "union" (Tf|<; evcoqecot;) has many
meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed
that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union
produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of
Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have
taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God,
condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognizes the
union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say,
hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not
only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows
no separation.

If anyone understands the expression "one only Person of our Lord Jesus
Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he
attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or

753

two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one
Person only out of dignity, honor or worship, as both Theodorus and
Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy
Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one
hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that
the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore
there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council
of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus
Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been
made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased
by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

VL

If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false
acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God,
or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a
simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the
incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united
himself to that man who was born [of her]; if he shall calumniate the Holy
Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of
God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her
the mother of a man (ocvGpcoTtoxoKov) or the Mother of Christ
(XpiGTOTOKov) as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is
exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who
before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made
flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the
holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let
him be anathema.

vn.

If anyone using the expression, "in two natures," does not confess that
our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the
humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures

754

of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which
neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that
of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature,
the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the
mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognizing the
two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not
content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the
natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the
union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in
one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to
make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.

vm.

If anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union
was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one
nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those
expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and
human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ;
but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance
[made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be
anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united
hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a
mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it
was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore
there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as
touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his
manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by
the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine
dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

IX.

If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his
two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations,

755

the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to
the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of
Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak
monstrously of one only nature or essence (cpuaiv ly/cuv cuoiocv) of the
united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one
adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy
Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified
in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity:
let him be anathema.

XL

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious
writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized
by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four
Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who
have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the
same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

NOTES

HEFELE

(Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 336.)

Halloix, Gamier, Basnage, Walch and others suppose, and Vincenzi
maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a later insertion in this

756

anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas, the Origenist, was one of the
most influential members of the Synod, and would certainly have
prevented a condemnation of Origen; further, (b) because in this
anathematism only such heretics would be named as had been condemned
by one of the first four Ecumenical Synods, which was not the case with
Origen; (c) because this anathematism is identical with the tenth in the
6(j,oXoyia of the Emperor, but in the latter the name of Origen is lacking;
and, finally, (d) because Origen does not belong to the group of heretics to
whom this anathematism refers. His errors were quite different.

All these considerations scent to me of insufficient strength, or mere
conjecture, to make an alteration in the text, and arbitrarily to remove the
name of Origen. As regards the objection in connection with Theodore
Ascidas, it is known that the latter had already pronounced a formal
anathema on Origen, and certainly he did the same this time, if the
Emperor wished it or if it seemed advisable. The second and fourth
objections have little weight. In regard to the third (c) it is quite possible
that either the Emperor subsequently went further than in his opo^oyioc
or that the bishops at the fifth Synod, of their own accord, added Origen,
led on perhaps by one or another anti-Origenist of their number. What,
however, chiefly determines us to the retention of the text is: (a) that the
copy of the synodal Acts extant in the Roman archives, which has the
highest credibility, and was probably prepared for Vigilius himself,
contains the name of Origen in the eleventh anathematism; and (b) that the
monks of the new Lama in Palestine, who are known to have been zealous
Origenists, withdrew Church communion from the bishops of Palestine
after these had subscribed the Acts of the fifth Synod. In the anathema on
the Three Chapters these Origenists could find as little ground for such a
rupture as their friends and former colleague Ascidas; it could only be by
the synod attacking their darling Origen. (c) Finally, only on the ground
that the name of Origen really stood in the eleventh anathematism, can we
explain the widely-circulated ancient rumor that our Synod anathematized
Origen and the Origenists.

757

xn.

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said
that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ,
vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and
separated little by little above that which is inferior, and become better by
the progress in good works and irreproachable in his manner of life, as a
mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit,
and became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to the
Person of God the Word (just as one worships the image of an emperor)
and that he is become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts
and altogether without sin. And, again, this same impious Theodore has
also said that the union of God the Word with Christ is like to that which,
according to the doctrine of the Apostle, exists between a man and his
wife, "They twain shall be in one flesh." The same [Theodore] has dared,
among numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after the
resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, "Receive the
Holy Ghost," he did not really give them the Holy Spirit, but that he
breathed upon them only as a sign. He likewise has said that the
profession of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection,
touched the hands and the side of the Lord, viz.: "My Lord and my God,"
was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at
the miracle of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up
Christ. And moreover (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore
in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato,
Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion, and says that as each of these men
having discovered his own doctrine, had given his name to his disciples,
who were called Platonists, Manicheans, Epicureans and Marcionites, just
so Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had given the name Christians to
his disciples. If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore
and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned
above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Savior
Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious
writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that

758

his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favor of him and of his impious
works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared
them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

xm.

If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against
the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St.
Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in
defense of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the
same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits
them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of
the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if
anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have
held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written
contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and
who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.

XIV.

If anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to
Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of
Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever- virgin, was made man, but says
that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the
Word of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter
also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of
Christians, and charges him with writing things like to the wicked
Apollinaris. In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of
Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and
without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the XII.
Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right
faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and
writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and
shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or
that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written

759

or shall write in its favor, or in defense of the impieties which are
contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the
impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy
Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offenses unto the end: let
him be anathema.

760

EXCURSUS ON THE XV. ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN

That Origen was condemned by name in the Eleventh Canon of this
council there seems no possible reason to doubt. I have given in connection
with that canon a full discussion of the evidence upon which our present
text rests. But there arises a further question, to wit, Did the Fifth Synod
examine the case of Origen and finally adopt the XV. Anathemas against
him which are usually found assigned to it? It would seem that with the
evidence now in our possession it would be the height of rashness to give a
dogmatic answer to this question. Scholars of the highest repute have
taken, and do take today, the opposite sides of the case, and each defends
his own side with marked learning and ability. To my mind the chief
difficulty in supposing these anathematisms to have been adopted by the
Fifth Ecumenical is that nothing whatever is said about Origen in the call
of the council, nor in any of the letters written in connection with it; all of
which would seem unnatural had there been a long discussion upon the
matter, and had such an important dogmatic definition been adopted as the
XV. Anathemas, and yet on the other hand there is a vast amount of
literature subsequent in date to the council which distinctly attributes a
detailed and careful examination of the teaching of Origen and a formal
condemnation of him and of it to this council.

The XV. Anathemas as we now have them were discovered by Peter
Lambeck, the Librarian of Vienna, in the XVIIth century; and bear, in the
Vienna MS., the heading, "Canons, of the 165 holy Fathers of the holy
fifth Synod, held in Constantinople." But despite this, Walch (Ketzerhist.,
Vol. vii., p. 661 et seqq. and 671; Vol. viij., p. 281 et seqq.); Dollinger
(Church History, Eng. Trans., Vol. v., p. 203 et seqq.); Hefele (Hist.
Councils, Vol. iv., p. 221 sq.), and many others look upon this caption as
untrustworthy. Evagrius, the historian, distinctly says that Origen was
condemned with special anathemas at this Council, but his evidence is
likewise (and, as it seems to me, too peremptorily) set aside.

Cardinal Noris, in his Dissertatio Historica de Synodo Quinta, is of
opinion that Origen was twice condemned by the Fifth Synod; the first
time by himself before the eight sessions of which alone the acts remain,
and again after those eight sessions, in connection with two of his chief

761

followers, Didymus the Blind and the deacon Evagrius. The Jesuit, John
Gamier wrote in opposition to Noris; but his work, while exceedingly
clever, is considered by the learned to contain (as Hefele says) "many
statements [which] are rash, arbitrary, and inaccurate, and on the whole it
is seen to be written in a spirit of opposition to Noris." In defense of
Noris' s main contention came forward the learned Ballerini brothers, of
Verona. In their Defensio dissertationis Norisianoe de Syn. V. adv. diss. P.
Garnerii, they expand and amend Noris' s hypothesis. But after all is said
the matter remains involved in the greatest obscurity, and it is far easier to
bring forward objections to the arguments in defense of either view than to
bring forward a theory which will satisfy all the conditions of the problem.

Those who deny that the XV. Anathemas were adopted by the Fifth
Synod agree in assigning them to the "Home Synod," that is a Synod at
Constantinople of the bishops subject to it, in A.D. 543. Hefele takes this
view and advocates it with much cogency, but confesses frankly, "We
certainly possess no strong and decisive proof that the fifteen
anathematisms belong to the Constantinopolitan synod of the year 543;
but some probable grounds for the opinion may be adduced. This appears
to be a somewhat weak statement with which to overthrow so much
evidence as there can be produced for the opposite view. For the
traditional view the English reader will find a complete defense in E. B.
Pusey, What is of Faith with regard to Eternal Punishment?

Before closing it will be well to call the attention of the reader to these
words now found in the acts as we have them:

"And we found that many others had been anathematized after death, also
even Origen; and if any one were to go back to the times of Theophilus of
blessed memory or further he would have found him anathematized after
death; which also now your holiness and Vigilius, the most religious Pope
of Old Rome has done in his case." It would seem that this cannot
possibly refer to anything else than a condemnation of Origen by the Fifth
Ecumenical Synod, and so strongly is Vincenzi, Origen' s defender,
impressed with this that he declares the passage to have been tampered
with. But even if these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod before
the meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical, it is clear that by including his name

762

among those of the heretics in the Xlth Canon, it practically ratified and
made its own the action of that Synod.

The reader will be glad to know Harnack's judgment in this matter. Writing
of the Fifth Council, he says: "It condemned Origen, as Justinian desired;
it condemned the Three Chapters and consequently the Antiochene
theology, as Justinian desired," etc., and in a foot-note he explains that he
agrees with "Noris, the Ballerini, Moller (R. Encykl., xi., p. 113) and
Loofs (pp. 287, 291) as against Hefele and Vincenzi." A few pages before,
he speaks of this last author's book as "a big work which falsities history
to justify the theses of Halloix, to rehabilitate Origen and Vigilius, and on
the other hand to 'remodel' the Council and partly to bring it into
contempt." Further on he says: "The fifteen anathemas against Origen, on
which his condemnation at the council was based, contained the following
points.... Since the 'Three Chapters ' were condemned at the same time,
Origen and Theodore were both got rid of.... Origen's doctrines of the
consummation, and of spirits and matter might no longer be maintained.
The judgment was restored to its place, and got back even its literal
meaning."

763

THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN

If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the
monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

n.

If anyone shall say that the creation (xr\v 7tapaycoyr|v) of all reasonable
things includes only intelligences (vooc<;) without bodies and altogether
immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between
them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union
with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight
of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his
own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtle, and
have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference
of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became
and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and
Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other
heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.

m.

If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable
beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned
towards evil: let him be anathema.

IV.

If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love
had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have
been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of

764

wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called
demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.

If anyone shall say that a psychic (\|A)%iKr|v) condition has come from an
angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac and a human
condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human state
they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of
heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or
from those above and below: let him be anathema.

VL

If anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the
one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to
this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which
has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that
spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he
has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between
heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more
ancient than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp,
heat and cold, and the image (iSeav)to which it was formed, was so
formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create
the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence (Ncug
8r|(xiot)py6<;) which is more ancient than the world, and which
communicates to it its being: let him be anathema.

vn.

If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the
form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word,
and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according
to their expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the

765

spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to
restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies and
different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among
Powers, has clothed I himself in the different classes of reasonable beings
with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and
blood like ours and is become man for men; [if anyone says all this] and
does not profess that God the Word humbled himself and became man: let
him be anathema.

vm.

If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same
substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh
and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word,
but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of
the abasement (KevcoaocvToc) as they call it, of the intelligence (vo-u<;) if
anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united (cxuvr|jx|j,evov) to God the
Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only
called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converse
that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos: let him be
anathema.

IX.

If anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Loges made man by taking
an animated body with a yx>%r\ ^oyiKri and voepoc that he descended into
hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the Novc, which
has done this, that Notx; of which they say (in an impious fashion) he is
Christ properly so called, and that he is become so by the knowledge of
the Monad: let him be anathema.

X.

766

If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was
ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of
all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected
his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the
nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.

XL

If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the
body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial \|r6ai<; and that
thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit (vo\)<;): let
him be anathema.

xn.

If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil
and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the
Ncuq which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and
which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the
Kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.

Xffl.

If anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the No-u<;] is in no wise different from
other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his
power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand
of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [the No-ut; as also they
were in the reigned pre-existence of all things: let him be anathema.

XIV.

If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one,
when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have

767

disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with
it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of
[all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the yvcoaic; and of
the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits
only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence: let him be
anathema.

XV.

If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits (vocov) shall be like to the
life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down
or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end
shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

768

THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE EMPEROR
JUSTINIAN AGAINST ORIGEN.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. v., col. 677.)

Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that they had
previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated with the vision
of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them
had died out (6c7t\|/t)yeiaa<;) and they had therefore become souls (\]n)%dc;)
and had been condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.

n.

If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was
united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the
Virgin, let him be anathema.

ffl.

If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first
formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and that afterwards there was
united with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be
anathema.

IV.

If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all
heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for the
seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let him be
anathema.

769

V.

If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will rise
spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be anathema.

VL

If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the
waters that are above heavens, have souls, and are reasonable beings, let
him be anathema.

vn.

If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time will be
crucified for demons as he was for men, let him be anathema.

vm.

If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited, and that he
created as much as he was able to compass, let him be anathema.

IX.

If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious
men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a
restoration (6c7toKocT&GTocoi<;) will take place of demons and of impious
men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions
together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine? and to
whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any
way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

770

THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN
CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL

SYNOD

HISTORICAL NOTE.

(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. 33:52.)

At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and
six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein
he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his
brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one
recognizes the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He
says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters,
he finds them worthy of condemnation. "We recognize for our brethren
and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this
writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defense of the
three chapters."

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE VIGILIUS.

(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in the
Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first published, with
a Latin translation and with a dissertation. Both of these with the Greek
text are found in Labbe and Cossart's Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.;
also in Migne's Patr. Lat., Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts
have been expressed about its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that
the learned Jesuit, Garnerius, in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus's
Breviary, has proved its supposititious character. But the learned have not
generally been of this mind but have accepted the letter as genuine.)

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.

771

No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human race has
stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with a wicked object
in view, striving in some way to fulfill his wish to destroy the Church of
God spread over the whole world, not only in his own name but even in
ours and in those of others to compose diverse things as well in words as
in writing; in so much that he attempted to divide us who, together with
our brethren and fellow bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who
defend with equal reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in the
one and the same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries and
machinations he tried to part from them; so that we ourselves who were
and are of the same opinion as they touching the faith, went apart into
discord, brotherly love being despised.

But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the darkness
comprehendeth not, hath removed all confusion from our minds, and hath
so recalled peace to the whole world and to the Church, so that what
things should be defined by us have been healthfully fulfilled through the
revelation of the Lord and through the investigation of the truth.

Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common with all of
you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four synods, that is to say
the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, and the
Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout mind, and watch over
them with all our mind. And should there be any who do not follow these
holy synods in all things which they have defined concerning the faith, we
judge them to be aliens to the communion of the holy and Catholic Church.

Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should know
what we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by this letter.
For no one can doubt how many were the discussions raised on account of
the Three Chapters, that is, concerning Theodore, sometime bishop of
Mopsuestia, and his writings, as well as concerning the writings of
Theodoret, and concerning that letter which is said to have been written by
Ibas to Maris the Persian: and how diverse were the things spoken and
written concerning these Three Chapters. Now if in every business sound
wisdom demands that there should be a retraction of what was
propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame when what was
at first omitted is made public after it is discovered by a further study of

772

the truth. [And if this is the case in ordinary affairs] how much more in
ecclesiastical strifes should the same dictate of sound reason be observed?
Especially since it is manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed
Augustine, who was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and
a master in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and
corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and
afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over the study
of the questions raised by the controversy with regard to the
before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages in the
writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter.

As a result of this investigation it became evident that in the sayings of
Theodore of Mopsuestia (which are spoken against on all hands) there are
contained very many things contrary to the right faith and to the teachings
of the holy Fathers; and for this very reason these same holy Fathers have
left for the instruction of tile Church treatises which they had written
against him.

For among other blasphemies of his we find that he openly said that God
the Word was one [Person] and Christ another [Person], vexed with the
passions of the soul and with the desires of the flesh, and that he little by
little advanced from a lower to a higher stage of excellence by the
improvement (rcpoKOTtfi per profectum operum) of his works, and became
irreprehensible in his manner of life. And further he taught that it was a
mere man who was baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Ghost, and that he received through baptism the grace of the
Holy Spirit, and merited his adoption; and therefore that Christ could be
venerated in the same way that the image of the Emperor is venerated as
being the persona (ei<; npboconoq) of God the Word. And he also taught
that [only] after his resurrection he became immutable in his thoughts and
altogether impeccable.

Moreover he said that the union of the Word of God was made with
Christ as the Apostle says the union is made between a man and his wife:
They twain shall be one flesh; and that after his resurrection, when the
Lord breathed upon his disciples and said, Receive tile Holy Ghost, he did
not give to them the Holy Spirit. In like strain of profanity he dared to say
that the confession which Thomas made, when he touched the hands and

773

side of the Lord after his resurrection, saying, My Lord and my God, did
not apply to Christ (for Theodore did not acknowledge Christ to be God);
but that Thomas gave glory to God being filled with wonder at the miracle
of the resurrection, and so said these words.

But what is still worse is this, that in interpreting the Acts of the
Apostles, Theodore makes Christ like to Plato, and Manichaeus, and
Epicurus, and Marcian, saying: Just as each of these were the authors of
their own peculiar teachings, and called their disciples after their own
names, Platonists, and Munichaeans, and Epicureans, and Marcionites,
just so Christ invented dogmas and called his followers Christians after
himself.

Let therefore the whole Catholic Church know that justly and
irreproachably we have arrived at the conclusions contained in this our
constitution. Wherefore we condemn and anathematize Theodore,
formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, together with
all other heretics, who (as is manifest) have been condemned and
anathematized by the four holy Synods aforesaid, and by the Catholic
Church: also the writings of Theodoret which are opposed to the right
faith, and are against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and against the first
Council of Ephesus, which were written by him in defense of Theodore
and Nestorius.

Moreover we anathematize and condemn the letter to the Persian heretic
Maris, which is said to have been written by Ibas, which denies that
Christ the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever- virgin
Mary, and was made man, but declares that a mere man was born of her,
and this man it styles a temple, so from this we are given to understand
that God the Word is one [Person] and Christ another [Person]. Moreover
it calumniates Saint Cyril, the master and herald of the orthodox faith,
calling him a heretic, and charging him with writing things similar to
Apollinaris; and it reviles the first Synod of Ephesus, as having
condemned Nestorius without deliberation or investigation; it likewise
declares the twelve chapters of St. Cyril to be impious and contrary to the
right faith; and further still it defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their
impious teachings and writings.

774

Therefore we anathematize and condemn the aforesaid impious Three
Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia and his impious
writings; And all that Theodoret impiously wrote, as well as the letter said
to have been written by Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned
profane blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at
any time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or
shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.

And further we define that they are our brethren and fellow-priests who
ever keep the right faith set forth by those afore-mentioned synods, and
shall have condemned the above-named Three Chapters, or even do now
condemn them.

And further we annul and evacuate by this present written definition of
ours whatever has been said by me (a me)or by others in defense of the
aforesaid Three Chapters.

Far be it from the Catholic Church that anyone should say that all the
blasphemies above related or they who held and followed such things,
were received by the before-mentioned four synods or by any one of
them. For it is most clear, that no one was admitted by the
before-mentioned holy Fathers and especially by the Council of
Chalcedon, about whom there was any suspicion, unless he had first
repelled the above-named blasphemies and all like to them, or else had
denied and condemned the heresy or blasphemies of which he was
suspected.

Subscription.

May God preserve thee in health, most honorable brother. Dated VI. Id.
Dec. in the xxijd year of our Lord the Emperor Justinian, eternal Augustus,
the xijth year after the consulate of the illustrious Basil.

HISTORICAL EXCURSUS ON THE AFTER HISTORY OF THE

COUNCIL.

Pope Vigilius died on his way home, but not until, as we have seen, he had
accepted and approved the action of the council in doing exactly that

775

which he "by the authority of the Apostolic See" in his Constitutum had
forbidden it to do. He died at the end of 554 or the beginning of 555.

Pelagius L, who succeeded him in the See of Rome, likewise confirmed the
Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was not received in all parts
of the West, although it had obtained the approval of the Pope. It was
bitterly opposed in the whole of tile north of Italy, in England, France, and
Spain, and also in Africa and Asia. The African opposition died out by
559, but Milan was in schism until 571, when Pope Justin II. published
his "Henoticon." In Istria the matter was still more serious, and when in
607 the bishop of Aquileia-Grado with those of his suffragans who were
subject to the Empire made their submission and were reconciled to the
Church, the other bishops of his jurisdiction set up a schismatical
Patriarchate at old Aquileia, and this schism continued till the Council of
Aquileia in 700. But before this the II. Council of Constantinople was
received all the world over as the Fifth Ecumenical Council; and was fully
recognized as such by the Sixth Council in 680.

776

THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

THE THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

A.D. 680-681

Emperor. — CONSTANTINE POGONATUS.
Pope. — AGATHO I.

Elenchus.

Historical Introduction.

Extracts from the Acts, Session I.

The Letter of Pope Agatho to the Emperor.

The Letter of the Roman Synod to the Council.

Introductory Note.

Extracts from the Acts, Session VIII.

The Sentence against the Monothelites, Session XIII.

The Acclamations, Session XVI.

The Definition of Faith.

Abstract of the Prosphoneticus to the Emperor.

The Synodal Letter to Pope Agatho.

Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

The Imperial Edict in abstract.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

777

The Sixth Ecumenical Council met on November 7, 680, for its first
session, and ended its meetings, which are said to have been eighteen in
number, on September 16th of the next year. The number of bishops
present was under three hundred and the minutes of the last session have
only 174 signatures attached to them.

When the Emperor first summoned the council he had no intention that it
should be ecumenical. From the Sacras it appears that he had summoned
all the Metropolitans and bishops of the jurisdiction of Constantinople,
and had also informed the Archbishop of Antioch that he might send
Metropolitans and bishops. A long time before he had written to Pope
Agatho on the subject.

When the synod assembled however, it assumed at its first session the
title "Ecumenical," and all the five patriarchs were represented, Alexandria
and Jerusalem having sent deputies although they were at the time in the
hands of the infidel.

In this Council the Emperor presided in person surrounded by high court
officials. On his right sat the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch and
next to them the representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria. On the
Emperor's left were seated the representatives of the Pope. In the midst
were placed, as usual, the Holy Gospels. After the eleventh session
however the Emperor was no longer able to be present, but returned and
presided at the closing meeting.

The sessions of the council were held in the domed hall (or possibly
chapel) in the imperial palace; which, the Acts tell us, was called Trullo
(ev xcp oeKpexco zov Qeiov naXaiiov, tco cutco Xeyopevcp TpouMcp)

It may be interesting to remark that the Sacras sent to the bishops of
Rome and Constantinople are addressed, the one to "The Most holy and
Blessed Archbishop of Old Rome and Ecumenical Pope," and the other to
"The Most holy and Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople and
Ecumenical Patriarch." Some of the titles given themselves by the signers
of the "Prosphoneticus" are interesting — "George, an humble presbyter
of the holy Roman Church, and holding the place of the most blessed
Agatho, ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome...," "John, an humble
deacon of the holy Roman Church and holding the place of the most

778

blessed Agatho, and ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome," "George, by
the mercy of God bishop of Constantinople which is New Rome," "Peter
a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city
Alexandria," "George, an humble presbyter of the Holy Resurrection of
Christ our God, and holding the place of Theodore the presbyter, beloved
of God, who holds the place of the Apostolic See of Jerusalem...," "John,
by the mercy of God bishop of the City of Thessalonica, and legate of the
Apostolic See of Rome," "John, the unworthy bishop of Portus, legate of
the whole Council of the holy Apostolic See of Rome," "Stephen, by the
mercy of God, bishop of Corinth, and legate of the Apostolic See of Old
Rome."

779

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 609 et seqq.)

[After a history of the assembly of the Council, the Acts begin with the
Speech of the Papal Legatee, as follows:]

Most benign Lord, in accordance with the Sacra to our most holy Pope
from your God-instructed majesty, we have been sent by him to the most
holy footsteps of your God-confirmed serenity, bearing with us his
suggestion (dvoccpop&t; suggestions) as well as the other suggestion of his
Synod equally addressed to your divinely preserved Piety by the
venerable bishops subject to it, which also we offered to your
God-crowned Fortitude. Since, then, during the past forty-six years, more
or less, certain novelties in expression, contrary to the Orthodox faith,
have been introduced by those who were at several times bishops of this,
your royal and God-preserved city, to wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and
Peter, as also by Cyrus, at one time archbishop of the city of Alexandria,
as well also as by Theodore, who was bishop of a city called Pharan, and
by certain others their followers, and since these things have in no small
degree brought confusion into the Church throughout the whole world, for
they taught dogmatically that there was but one will in the dispensation of
the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, and one
operation; and since many times your servant, our apostolic see, has
fought against this, and then prayed against it, and by no means been able,
even up to now, to draw away from such a depraved opinion its
advocates, we beseech your God-crowned fortitude, that such as share
these views of the most holy church of Constantinople may tell us, what
is the source of this new-fangled language.

[Answer of the Monothelites made at the Emperor's bidding:]

780

We have brought out no new method of speech, but have taught whatever
we have received from the holy Ecumenical Synods, and from the holy
approved Fathers, as well as from the archbishops of this imperial city, to
wit: Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, as also from Honorius who was
Pope of Old Rome, and from Cyrus who was Pope of Alexandria, that is
to say with reference to will and operation, and so we have believed, and
so we believe, so we preach; and further we are ready to stand by, and
defend this faith.

781

THE LETTER OF AGATHO, POPE OF OLD ROME, TO THE

EMPEROR, AND THE LETTER OF AGATHO AND OF BISHOPS

OF THE ROMAN SYNOD, ADDRESSED TO THE SIXTH

COUNCIL.

(Read at the Fourth Session, November 15, at the request of George,
Patriarch of Constantinople and his Suffragans.)

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

(Bossuet, Defensio Cler. Galatians Lib. VII., cap. xxiv.)

All the fathers spoke one by one, and only after examination were the
letters of St. Agatho and the whole Western Council approved. Agatho,
indeed, and the Western Bishops put forth their decrees thus ['We have
directed persons from our humility to your valor protected of God, which
shall offer to you the report of us all, that is, of all the Bishops in the
Northern or Western Regions, in which too we have summed up the
confession of our Apostolic Faith, yet] not as those who wished to
contend about these things as being uncertain, but, being certain and
unchangeable to see them forth in a brief definition, [suppliantly
beseeching you that, by the favor of your sacred majesty, you would
command these same things to be preached to all, and to have force with
all.'] Undoubtedly, therefore, so far as in them lay, they defined the
matter. The question was, whether the other Churches throughout the
world would agree, and a matter so great was only made clear after
Episcopal examination. But the high, magnificent, yet true expressions,
which St. Agatho had used of his See, namely, that resting on the promise
of the Lord it had never turned aside from the path of truth, and that its
Pontiffs, the predecessors of Agatho, who were charged in the person of
Peter to strengthen their brethren, had ever discharged that office, this the
Fathers of the Council hear and receive. But not the less they examine the

782

matter, they inquire into the decrees of Roman Pontiffs, and, after inquiry
held, approve Agatho's decrees, condemn those of Honorius: a certain
proof that they did not understand Agatho's expressions as if it were
necessary to receive without discussion every decree of Roman Pontiffs
even deride, inasmuch as they are subjected to the supreme and final
examination of a General Council: but as if these expressions taken as a
whole, in their total, hold good in the full and complete succession of
Peter, as we have often said, and in its proper place shall say at greater
length.

THE LETTER OF POPE AGATHO.

(Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVIL, col. 1161; L. and C., Tom.
VI., col. 630.)

Agatho a bishop and servant of the servants of God to the most devout
and serene victors and conquerors, our most beloved sons and lovers of
God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine the Great, and
to Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses.

While contemplating the various anxieties of human life, and while
groaning with vehement weeping before the one true God, in prayer that
he might impart to my wavering soul the comfort of his divine mercy, and
might lift me by his right hand out of the depths of grief and anxiety, I
most gratefully recognize, my most illustrious lords and sons, that your
purpose [i.e. of holding a Council] afforded me deep and wonderful
consolation. For it was most pious and emanated from your most meek
tranquillity, taught by the divine benignity for the benefit of the Christian
commonwealth divinely entrusted to your keeping, that your imperial
power and clemency might have a care to enquire diligently concerning the
things of God (through whom Kings do reign, who is himself King of
Kings and Lord of Lords) and might seek after the truth of his spotless
faith as it has been handed down by the Apostles and by the Apostolic
Fathers, and be zealously affected to command that in all the churches the
pure tradition be held. And that no one may be ignorant of this pious

783

intention of yours, or suspect that we have been compelled by force, and
have not freely consented to the carrying into effect of the imperial decrees
touching the preaching of our evangelical faith which was addressed to our
predecessor Donus, a pontiff of Apostolic memory, they have through our
ministry been sent to and entirely approved by all nations and peoples;
for these decrees Holy Spirit by his grace dictated to the tongue of the
imperial pen, out of the treasure of a pure heart, as the words of an adviser
not of an oppressor, defending himself, not looking with contempt upon
others; not afflicting, but exhorting; and inviting to those things which are
of God in godly wise, because he, the Maker and Redeemer of all men,
who had he come in the majesty of his Godhead into the world, might have
terrified mortals, preferred to descend through his inestimable clemency
and humility to the estate of us whom he had created and thus to redeem
us, who also expects from us a willing confession of the true faith.

And this it is that the blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, teaches:
"Feed the flock of Christ which is among you, not by constraint, but
willingly, exhorting it according to God." Therefore, encouraged by these
imperial decrees, O most meek lords of all things, and relieved from the
depths of affliction and raised to the hope of consolation, I have begun,
refreshed somewhat by a better confidence, to comply with promptness
with the flyings which were sometime ago bidden by the Sacra of your
gentlest fortitude, and am endeavoring in obedience therewith to find
persons, such as our deficient times and the quality of this obedient
province permit, and taking advice with my fellow-servant bishops, as
well concerning the approaching synod of this Apostolic See, as
concerning our own clergy, the lovers of the Christian Empire, and,
afterwards concerning the religious servants of God, that I might exhort
them to follow in haste the footsteps of your most pious Tranquillity.
And, were it not that the great compass of the provinces, in which our
humility's council is situated had caused so great a loss of time, our
servitude a while ago could have fulfilled with studious obedience what
even now has scarcely been done. For while from the various provinces a
council has been gathering about us, and while we have been able to select
some persons of those from this very Roman city immediately subject to
your most serene power, or from those near by, others again we have been
obliged to wait for from far distant provinces, in which the word of

784

Christian faith was preached by those sent by the predecessors of my
littleness; and thus quite a space of time has elapsed: and I pass over my
bodily pains in consequence of which life to a perpetually suffering person
is neither possible nor pleasant. Therefore, most Christian lords and sons,
in accordance with the most pious jussio of your God-protected clemency,
we have had a care to send, with the devotion of a prayerful heart (from
the obedience we owe you, not because we relied on the [superabundant]
knowledge of those whom we send to you), our fellow- servants here
present, Abundantius, John, and John, our most reverend brother bishops,
Theodore and George our most beloved sons and presbyters, with our
most beloved son John, a deacon, and with Constantine, a subdeacon of
this Holy Spiritual mother, the Apostolic See, as well as Theodore, the
presbyter legate of the holy Church of Ravenna and the religious servants
of God the monks. For, among men placed amid the Gentiles, and earning
their daily bread by bodily labor with considerable distraction, how could
a knowledge of the Scriptures, in its fullness, be found unless what has
been canonically defined by our holy and apostolic predecessors, and by
the venerable five councils, we preserve in simplicity of heart, and without
any distorting keep the faith come to us from the Fathers, always desirous
and endeavoring to possess that one and chiefest good, viz.: that nothing
be diminished from the things canonically defined, and that nothing be
changed nor added thereto, but that those same things, both in words and
sense, be guarded untouched? To these same commissioners we also have
given the witness of some of the holy Fathers, whom this Apostolic
Church of Christ receives, together with their books, so that, having
obtained from the power of your most benign Christianity the privilege of
suggesting, they might out of these endeavor to give satisfaction, (when
your imperial Meekness shall have so commanded) as to what this
Apostolic Church of Christ, their spiritual mother and the mother of your
God-sprung empire, believes and preaches, not in words of worldly
eloquence, which are not at the command of ordinary men, but in the
integrity of the apostolic fifth, in which having been taught from the
cradle, we pray that we may serve and obey the Lord of heaven, the
Propagator of your Christian empire, even unto the end. Consequently, we
have granted them faculty or authority with your most tranquil
mightiness, to afford satisfaction with simplicity whenever your clemency
shall command, it being enjoined on them as a limitation that they presume

785

not to add to, take away, or to change anything; but that they set forth
this tradition of the Apostolic See in all sincerity as it has been taught by
the apostolic pontiffs, who were our predecessors. For these delegates we
most humbly implore with bent knees of the mind your clemency ever full
of condescension, that agreeably to the most benign and most august
promise of the imperial Sacra, your Christlike Tranquillity may deem them
worthy of acceptance and may deign to give a favorable hearing to their
most humble suggestions. Thus may your meekest Piety find the ears of
Almighty God open to your prayers, and may you order that they return
to their own unharmed in their rectitude of our Apostolic faith, as well as
in the integrity of their bodies. And thus may the supernal Majesty
restore to the benign rule of your government through the most heroic and
unconquerable labors of your God- strengthened clemency, the whole
Christian commonwealth, and may he subdue hostile nations to your
mighty scepter, that there may be satisfaction from this time forth to
every soul and to all nations, because what you deigned to promise
solemnly by your most august letters about the immunity and safety of
those who came to the Council, you have fulfilled in all respects. It is not
their wisdom that gave us confidence to make bold to send them to your
pious presence; but our littleness obediently complied with what your
imperial benignity, with a gracious order, exhorted to. And briefly we shall
intimate to your divinely instructed Piety, what the strength of our
Apostolic faith contains, which we have received through Apostolic
tradition and through the tradition of the Apostolical pontiffs, and that of
the five holy general synods, through which the foundations of Christ's
Catholic Church have been strengthened and established; this then is the
status [and the regular tradition] of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith, to
wit, that as we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and
substance or essence, so we will profess also that it has one natural will,
power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory. And whatever
is said of the same Holy Trinity essentially in singular number we
understand to refer to the one nature of the three consubstantial Persons,
having been so taught by canonical logic. But when we make a confession
concerning one of the same three Persons of that Holy Trinity, of the Son
of God, or God the Word, and of the mystery of his adorable dispensation
according to the flesh, we assert that all things are double in the one arm

786

the same our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ according to the Evangelical
tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the divine and
the human, of which and in which he, even after the wonderful and
inseparable union, subsists. And we confess that each of his natures has
its own natural propriety, and that the divine, has all filings that are divine,
without any sin. And we recognize that each one (of the two natures) of
the one and the same incarnated, that is, humanated (humanati) Word of
God is in him unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence
alone discerning a unity, to avoid the error of confusion. For we equally
detest the blasphemy of division and of commixture. For when we confess
two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in our one
Lord Jesus Christ, we do not assert that they are contrary or opposed one
to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the
apostolic tradition of doing. Far be this impiety from the hearts of the
faithful!), nor as though separated (per se separated) in two persons or
subsistences, but we say that as the same our Lord Jesus Christ has two
natures so also he has two natural wills and operations, to wit, the divine
and the human: the divine will and operation he has in common with the
coessential Father from all eternity: the human, he has received from us,
taken with our nature in time. This is the apostolic and evangelic tradition,
which the spiritual mother of your most felicitous empire, the Apostolic
Church of Christ, holds. This is the pure expression of piety. This is the
true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by
human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the
princes of the Apostles. This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of
the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it
is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquillity in the Christian
commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and
exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness.
Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons,
that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and
exultation [in Greek exaltation]. And these things I (although unworthy
and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your
God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquillity is
our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness.
And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with
prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the

787

Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labors, the blessed
apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that
it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the
true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the
Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received
from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of
feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield,
this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth
in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the
Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have
faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable
Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the
most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the
holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics
have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is
the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds
everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be
preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful
confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which
keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching
victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which
accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every
side as an impregnable wall your God- sprung empire, which throws terror
into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also
in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection
of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and
joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual
mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has
both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy;
which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred
from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by
yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received
the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of
Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise
of the Lord and Savior himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to
the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired
to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee,

788

that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the
Lord and Savior of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith
should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is
known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my
littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our
littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes
to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. For woe is
me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely
preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am
bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and
imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ
himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his
words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the
souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I
have received? Who, then, my most clement and most pious lords and
sons, (I speak trembling and prostrate in spirit) would not be stirred by
that admirable promise, which is made to the faithful: "Whoever shall
confess me before men, him also will I confess before my Father, who is in
heaven"? And which one even of the infidels shall not be terrified by that
most severe threat, in which he protests that he will be full of wrath, and
declares that "Whoever shall deny me before men, him also will I deny
before my Father, who is in heaven"? Whence also blessed Paul, the
apostle of the Gentiles, gives warning and says: "But though we, or an
angel from the heaven should preach to you any other Gospel from what
we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema." Since, therefore, such
an extremity of punishment overhangs the corrupters, or suppressers of
truth by silence, would not any one flee from an attempt at curtailing the
truth of the Lord's faith? Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic
memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the
prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce
into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never
ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at
least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest
from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by
asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus
Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the

789

Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the
Gaianitae taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who
confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.
Those that confound the mystery of the holy Incarnation, inasmuch as
they say that there is one nature of the deity and humanity of Christ,
contend that he has one will, as of one, and (one) personal operation. But
they who divide, on the other hand, the inseparable union, unite the two
natures which they acknowledge that the Savior possesses, not however in
an union which is recognized to be hypostatic; but blasphemously join
them by concord, through the affection, of the will, like two subsistences,
i.e., two somebodies. Moreover, the Apostolic Church of Christ, the
spiritual mother of your God-founded empire, confesses one Jesus Christ
our Lord existing of and in two natures, and she maintains that his two
natures, to wit, the divine and the human, exist in him unconfused even
after their inseparable union, and she acknowledges that each of these
natures of Christ is perfect in the proprieties of its nature, and she
confesses that all things belonging to the proprieties of the natures are
double, because the same our Lord Jesus Christ himself is both perfect
God and perfect man, of two and in two natures: and after his wonderful
Incarnation, his deity cannot be thought of without his humanity, nor his
humanity without his deity. Consequently, therefore, according to the rule
of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, she also confesses
and preaches that there are in him two natural wills and two natural
operations. For if anybody should mean a personal will, when in the holy
Trinity there are said to be three Persons, it would be necessary that there
should be asserted three personal wills, and three personal operations
(which is absurd and truly profane). Since, as the truth of the Christian
faith holds, the will is natural, where the one nature of the holy and
inseparable Trinity is spoken of, it must be consistently understood that
there is one natural will, and cue natural operation. But when in truth we
confess that in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ the mediator
between God and men, there are two natures (that is to say the divine and
the human), even after his admirable union, just as we canonically confess
the two natures of one and the same person, so too we confess his two
natural wills and two natural operations. But that the understanding of this
truthful confession may become clear to your Piety's mind from the
God-inspired doctrine of the Old and the New Testament, (for your

790

Clemency is incomparably more able to penetrate the meaning of the
sacred Scriptures, than our littleness to set it forth in flowing words), our
Lord Jesus Christ himself, who is true and perfect God, and true and
perfect man, in his holy Gospels shews forth in some instances human
things, in others, divine, and still in others both together, making a
manifestation concerning himself in order that he might instruct his faithful
to believe and preach that he is both true God and true man. Thus as man
he prays to the Father to take away the cup of suffering, because in him
our human nature was complete, sin only excepted, "Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou
wilt." And in another passage: "Not my will, but thine be done." If we
wish to know the meaning of which testimony as explained by the holy
and approved Fathers, and truly to understand what "my will," what
"thine" signify, the blessed Ambrose in his second book to the Emperor
Gratian, of blessed memory, teaches us the meaning of this passage in
these words, saying: "He then, receives my will, he takes my sorrow, I
confidently call it sorrow as I am speaking of the cross, mine is the will,
which he calls his, because he bears my sorrow as man, he spoke as a man,
and therefore he says: 'Not as I will but as thou wilt.'" Mine is the
sadness which he has received according to my affection. See, most pious
of princes, how clearly here this holy Father sets forth that the words our
Lord used in his prayer, "Not my will," pertain to his humanity; through
which also he is said, according to the teaching of Blessed Paul the Apostle
of the Gentiles, to have "become obedient unto death, even the death of
the Cross." Wherefore also it is taught us that he was obedient to his
parents, which must piously be understood to refer to his voluntary
obedience, not according to his divinity (by which he governs all things),
but according to his humanity, by which he spontaneously submitted
himself to his parents. St. Luke the Evangelist likewise bears witness to
the same thing, telling how the same our Lord Jesus Christ prayed
according to his humanity to his Father, and said, "Father, if it be possible
let the cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will but thine be done," —
which passage Athanasius, the Confessor of Christ, and Archbishop of the
Church of Alexandria, in his book against Apollinaris the heretic,
concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, also understanding the wills to
be two, thus explains: And when he says, "Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will but thine be done," and again,

791

"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak;" he shews that there are two
wills, the one human which is the will of the flesh, but the other divine.
For his human will, out of the weakness of the flesh was fleeing away
from the passion, but his divine will was ready for it. What truer
explanation could be found? For how is it possible not to acknowledge in
him two wills, to wit, a human and a divine, when in him, even after the
inseparable union, there are two natures according to the definitions of the
synods? For John also, who leaned upon the Lord's breast, his beloved
disciple, shews forth the same self-restraint in these words: "I came down
from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of the Father that sent
me." And again: "This is the will of him that sent me, that of all that he
gave me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."
Again he introduces the Lord as disputing with the Jews, and saying
among other things: "I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that
sent me." On the meaning of which divine words blessed Augustine, a
most illustrious doctor, thus writes in his book against Maximinus the
Arian. He says, "When the Son says to the Father 'Not what I will, but
what thou wilt,' what doth it profit thee, that thou broughtest thy words
into subjection and sayest, It shews truly that his will was subject to his
Father, as though we would deny that the will of man should be subject to
the will of God? For that the Lord said this in his human nature, anyone
will quickly see who studies attentively this place of the Gospel. For
therein he says, 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death.' Can
this possibly be said of the nature of the One Word? But, O man, who
thinkest to make the nature of the Holy Ghost to groan, why do you say
that the nature of the Only-begotten Word of God cannot be sad? But to
prevent anyone arguing in this way, he does not say T am sad;' (and even
if he had so said, it could properly only have been understood of his
human nature) but he says 'My soul is sad,' which soul he has as man;
however in this also which he said, 'Not what I will' he shewed that he
willed something different from what the Father did, which he could not
have done except in his human nature, since he did not introduce our
infirmity into his divine nature, but would transfigure human affection. For
had he not been made man, the Only Word could in no way have said to
the Father, 'Not what I will.' For it could never be possible for that
immutable nature to will anything different from what the Father willed. If

792

you would but make this distinction, O ye Arians, ye would not be
heretics."

In this disputation this venerable Father shews that when the Lord says
"his own" he means the will of his humanity, and when he says not to do
"his own will," he teaches us not chiefly to seek our own wills but that
through obedience we should submit our wills to the Divine Will. From all
which it is evident that he had a human will by which he obeyed his
Father, and that he had in himself this same human will immaculate from
all sin, as true God and man. Which thing St. Ambrose also thus treats of
in his explanation of St. Luke the Evangelist.

[After this follows a catena of Patristic quotations which I have not thought
worth while to produce in full. After St. Ambrose he cites St. Leo, then St.
Gregory Nazianzen, then St. Augustine. (L. etc., col. 647.)]

From which testimonies it is clear that each of those natures which the
spiritual Doctor has here enumerated has its own natural property, and
that to each one a will ought to be assigned. For an angelic nature cannot
have a divine or a human will, neither can a human nature have a divine or
an angelic will. For no nature can have anything or any motion which
pertains to another nature but only that which is naturally given by
creation. And as this is the truth of the matter it is most certainly clear
that we must needs confess that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are two
natures and substances, to wit, the Divine and human, united in his one
subsistence or person, and that we further confess that there are in him
two natural wills, viz.: the divine and the human, for his divinity so far as
its nature is concerned could not be said to possess a human will, nor
should his humanity be believed to have naturally a divine will: And again,
neither of these two substances of Christ must be confessed as being
without a natural will; but his human will was lifted up by the
omnipotency of his divinity, and his divine will was revealed to men
through his humanity. Therefore it is necessary to refer to him as God
such things as are divine, and as man such things as are human; and each
must be truly recognized through the hypostatic union of the one and the
same our Lord Jesus Christ, which the most true decree of the Council of
Chalcedon sets forth — [Here follows citation.] This same thing also the
holy synod which was gathered together in Constantinople in the time of

793

the Emperor Justinian of august memory, teaches in the viith. chapter of
its definitions. [Here follows the citation,] Moreover it is necessary that
we should faithfully keep what those Venerable Synods taught, so that we
never take away the difference of natures as a result of the union, but
confess one Christ, true and perfect God and also true and perfect man,
the propriety of each nature being kept intact. Wherefore, if in no respect
the difference of the natures of our Lord Jesus Christ has been taken away,
it is necessary that we preserve this same difference in all its proprieties.
For whoso teaches that the difference is in no respect to be taken away,
declares that it must be preserved in all things. But when the heretics and
the followers of heretics say that there is but one will and one operation,
how is this difference recognized? Or where is the difference which has
been defined by this holy Synod preserved? While if it is asserted that
there is but one will in him (which is absurd), those who make this
assertion must needs say that that will is either human or divine, or else
composite from both, mixed and confused, or (according to the teaching of
all heretics) that Christ has one will and one operation, proceeding from
his one composite nature (as they hold). And thus, without any doubt, the
difference of nature is destroyed, which the holy synods declared to be
preserved in all respects even after the admirable union. Because, though
they taught that Christ was one, his person and substance one, yet on
account of the union of the natures which was made hypostatically, they
likewise decreed that we should clearly acknowledge and teach the
difference of those natures which were united in him, after the admirable
union. Therefore if the proprieties of the natures in the same our one Lord
Jesus Christ were preserved on account of the difference [of the natures],
it is congruous that we should with full faith confess also the difference of
his natural wills and operations, in order that we may be shown to have
followed in all respects their doctrine, and may admit into the Church of
Christ no heretical novelty.

And although there exist numerous works of the other holy Fathers,
nevertheless we subjoin to this our humble exposition a few testimonies
out of the books which are in Greek, for the sake of fastidiousness.

[Here follows a catena of passages from the Greek fathers, viz.'. St.
Gregory Theologus, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. John bishop of
Constantinople, St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. (L. etc., col. 654.)]

794

From these truthful testimonies it is also demonstrated that these
venerable fathers predicated in the one and the same Lord Jesus Christ two
natural wills, viz.: a divine and a human, for when St. Gregory Nazianzen
says," The willing of that man who is understood to be the Savior," he
shows that the human will of the Savior was deified through its union with
the Word, and therefore it is not contrary to God. So likewise he proves
that he had a human, although deified will, and this same he had (as he
teaches in what follows) as well as his divine will, which was one and the
same with that of the Father. If therefore he had a divine and a deified will,
he had also two wills. For what is divine by nature has no need of being
deified; and what is deified is not truly divine by nature. And when St.
Gregory Nyssen, a great bishop, says that the true confession of the
mystery is, that there should be understood one human will and another a
divine will in Christ, what does he bid us understand when he says one
and another will, except that there are manifestly two wills?

[He next proceeds to comment upon the passage cited from St. John, then
upon that from St. Cyril of Alexandria. After this follow quotations from
St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Denys the Areopagite, St. Ambrose, St.
Leo, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, which are next
commented on in their order. He then proceeds: (L. etc., col. 662.)]

There are not lacking most telling passages in other of the venerable
fathers, who speak clearly of the two natural operations in Christ, not to
mention St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John of Constantinople, or those who
afterwards conducted the laborious conflicts in defense of the venerable
council of Chalcedon and of the Tome of St. Leo against the heretics from
whose error the assertion of this new dogma has arisen: that is to say,
John, bishop of Scythopolis, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, Euphraemius
and Anastasius the elder, most worthy rulers of the church of Theopolis,
and above all that emulator of the true and apostolic faith, the Emperor
Justinian of pious memory, whose uprightness of faith exalted the
Christian State as much as his sincere confession pleased God. And his
pious memory is esteemed worthy of veneration by all nations, whose
uprightness of faith was disseminated with praise throughout the whole
world by his most august edicts: one of these, to wit, that addressed to
Zoilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, against the heresy of the Acephali to
satisfy them of the rectitude of the apostolic faith, we offer to your most

795

tranquil Christianity, sending it together with this paper of our lowliness
through the same carriers. But lest this declaration should be thought
burdensome on account of its length, we have inserted in this declaration
of our humility only a few of the testimonies of the Holy Fathers,
especially [when writing to those] on whom the care and arrangement of
the whole world as on a firm foundation are recognized to rest; since this is
altogether incomparable and great, that the care of the whole Christian
State being laid aside for a little out of love and zeal for true religion, your
august and most religious clemency should desire to understand more
clearly the doctrine of apostolical preaching. For from the different
approved fathers the truth of the Orthodox faith has become clear although
the treatment is short. For the approved fathers thought it to be
superfluous to discourse at length upon what was evident and clear to all;
for who, even if he be dull of wit, does not perceive what is evident to all?
For it is impossible and contrary to the order of nature that there should
be a nature without a natural operation: and even the heretics did not dare
to say this, although they were, all of them, hunting for human craftiness
and cunning questions against the orthodoxy of the faith, and arguments
agreeable to their depravities.

How then can that now be asserted which never was said by the holy
orthodox fathers, nor even was presumptuously invented by the profane
heretics, viz.: that of the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human,
the proprieties of each of which are recognized as being preserved in
Christ, that anyone in sound mind should declare there was but one
operation? Since if there is one, let them say whether it be temporal or
eternal, divine or human, uncreated or created: the same as that of the
Father or different from that of the Father. If therefore it is one, that one
and the same must be common to the divinity anti to the humanity (which
is absurd), therefore while the Son of God, who is both God and man,
wrought human things on earth, likewise also the Father worked with him
according to his nature (naturaliter, (pi>GiK(5c;) for what things the Father
doeth these the Son also doeth likewise. But if (as is the truth) the human
acts which Christ did are to be referred to his person alone as the Son,
which is not the same as that of the Father; in one nature Christ worked
one set of works, and in the other another, so that according to his divinity
the Son does the same things that the Father does; and likewise according

796

to his humanity, what things are proper to the manhood, those same, he as
man, did because he is truly both God and man. For which reason we
rightly believe that that same person, since he is one, has two natural
operations, to wit, the divine and the human, one uncreated, and the other
created, as true and perfect God and as true and perfect man, the one and
the same, the mediator between God and men, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wherefore from the quality of the operations there is recognized a
difference void of offense (6c7t6aK07toc,) of the natures which are joined in
Christ through the hypostatic union. We now proceed to cite some
passages from the execrable writings of the heretics hated of God, whose
words and sayings we equally abominate, for the demonstration of those
things which our inventors of new dogma have followed teaching that in
Christ there is but one will and one operation.

[Then follow quotations from Apollinaris, Severus, Theodosius of
Alexandria. (L. etc., col. 667.)]

Behold, most pious lords and sons, by the testimonies of the holy Fathers,
as by spiritual rays, the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church has
been illustrated and the darkness of heretical blindness, which is offering
error to men for imitation, has been revealed. Now it is necessary that the
new doctrine should follow somebody, and by whose authority it is
supported, we shall note.

[Here follow quotations from Cyrus of Alexandria, Theodore of Pharon,
Sergius of Constantinople, Pyrrhus, Paulus his successor, Peter his
successor. (L. etc., col. 670.)]

Let then your God-rounded clemency with the internal eye of
discrimination, which for the guidance of the Christian people you have
been deemed worthy to receive by the Grace of God, take heed which one
of such doctors you think the Christian people should follow, the doctrine
of which one of these they should embrace so as to be saved; for they
condemn all, and each one of them the other, according as the various and
unstable definitions in their writings assert sometimes that there is one will
and one operation, sometimes that there is neither one nor two operations,
sometimes one will and operation, and again two wills and two operations,
likewise one will and one operation, and again neither one, nor two, and
somebody else one and two.

797

Who does not hate, and rage against, and avoid such blind errors, if he have
any desire to be saved and seek to offer to the Lord at his coming a right
faith? Therefore the Holy Church of God, the mother of your most
Christian power, should be delivered and liberated with all your might
(through the help of God) from the errors of such teachers, and the
evangelical and apostolic uprightness of the orthodox faith, which has been
established upon the firm reek of this Church of blessed Peter, the Prince
of the Apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all
error, [that faith I say] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the
clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us
as the true declaration of the Apostolic tradition, in order to please God
and to save their own souls.

And these things we have taken pains to insert in the tractate of our
humility, for we have been afflicted and have groaned without ceasing that
such grievous errors should be entertained by bishops of the 1 Church,
who are zealous to establish their own peculiar views rather than the truth
of the faith, and think that our sincere fraternal admonition has its spring
in a contempt for them. And indeed the apostolic predecessors of my
humility admonished, begged, upbraided, besought, reproved, and
exercised every kind of exhortation that the recent wound bright receive a
remedy, moved thereto not by a mind filled with hatred (God is my
witness) nor through the elation of boasting, nor through the opposition of
contention, nor through an inane desire to find some fault with their
teachings, nor through anything akin to the love of arrogance, but out of
zeal for the uprightness of the truth, and for the rule of the confession of
the pure Gospel, and for the salvation of souls, and for the stability of the
Christian state, and for the safety of those who rule the Roman Empire.
Nor did they cease from their admonitions after the long duration of this
domesticated error, but always exhorted and bore record, and that with
fraternal charity, not through malice or pertinacious hatred (far be it from
the Christian heart to rejoice at another's fall, when the Lord of all teaches,
"I desire not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live;" and
who rejoiceth over one sinner that repenteth more than over
ninety-and-nine just persons: who came down from heaven to earth to
deliver the lost sheep, inclining the power of his majesty), but desiring
them with outstretched spiritual arms, and exhorting to embrace them

798

returning to the unity of the orthodox faith, and awaiting their conversion
to the full rectitude of the orthodox faith: that they might not make
themselves aliens froth our communion, that is from the communion of
blessed Peter the Apostle, whose ministry, we (though unworthy)
exercise, and preach the faith he has handed down, but that they should
together with us pray Christ the Lord, the spotless sacrifice, for the
stability of your most strong and serene Empire.

We believe, most pious lords [singular in the Latin] of all things, that there
has been left no possible ambiguity which can prevent the recognizing of
those who have followed the inventors of new dogma. For the sweetness
of spiritual understanding with which the sayings of the Fathers are full
has become evident to the eyes of all; and the stench of the heretics, to be
avoided by all the faithful, has been made notorious. Nor has it remained
unknown that the inventors of new dogma have been shewn to be the
followers of heretics, and not the walkers in the footsteps of the holy
Fathers: therefore whoever wishes to color any error of his whatever, is
condemned by the light of truth, as the Apostle of the Gentiles says, "For
everything that doth make manifest is light," for the truth ever remains
constant and the same, but falsehood is ever varying, and in its wanderings
adopting things mutually contradictory. On this account the inventors of
the new dogma have been shewn to have taught things mutually
contradictory, because they were not willing to be followers of the
Evangelical and Apostolic faith. Wherefore since the truth has shone forth
by the observations of your God-inspired piety, and falsity which has
been exposed has attained the contempt which it deserved, it remains that
the crowned truth may shine forth victoriously through the pious favors
of your God-crowned clemency; and that the error of novelty with it
inventors and with those who follow their doctrine, may receive the
punishment due their presumption, and be cast forth from the midst of the
orthodox prelates for the heretical pravity of their innovation, which into
the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ they have endeavored
to introduce, and to stain with the contagion of heretical pravity the
indivisible and unspotted body of the Church [of Christ]. For it is not just
that the injurious should injure the innocent, nor that the offenses of some
should be visited upon the inoffensive, for even if in this world to the
condemned mercy is extended, yet they who are thus spared reap for that

799

sparing no benefit in the judgment of God, and by those thus sparing them
there is incurred no little danger for their unlawful compassion.

But we believe that Almighty God has reserved for the happy days of
your gentleness the amending of these things, that filling on earth the place
and zeal of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who has vouchsafed to crown
your rule, ye may judge just judgment for his Evangelical and Apostolical
truth: for although he be the Redeemer and Savior of the human race yet he
suffered injury, and bore it even until now, and inspired the empire of
your fortitude, so that you should be worthy to follow the cause of his
faith (as equity demanded, and as the determination of the Holy Fathers
and of the Five General Synods decreed), and that you should avenge,
through his guardianship, on the spurners of his faith, the injury done your
Redeemer and Colleague in reigning, thus fulfilling magnanimously with
imperial clemency that prophetic utterance with which David the King and
Prophet, spake to God, saying, "The zeal of thine house hath eaten me
up." Wherefore having been extolled for so God-pleasing a zeal, he was
deemed fit to hear that blessed word spoken by the Creator of all men, "I
have found David, a man after my heart, who will do all my will." And to
him also it was promised in the Psalms, "I have found David, my servant,
with my holy oil have I anointed him: My hand shall aid him and my arm
shall comfort him," so that the most pious majesty of your Christian
clemency may work to further the cause of Christ with burning zeal for
the sake of remuneration, and may he make all the acts of your most
powerful empire both happy and prosperous, who hath stored up his
promise in the Holy Gospels, saying," Seek ye first the kingdom of God
and all these things shall be added unto you." For all, to whom has come
the knowledge of the sacred heads, have been offering innumerable
thanksgivings and unceasing praises to the defender of your most powerful
dominion, being filled with admiration for the greatness of your clemency,
in that you have so benignly set forth the kind intention of your august
magnanimity; for in truth, as most pious and most just princes, you have
deigned to treat divine things with the fear of God, having promised every
immunity to those persons sent to you from our littleness.

And we are confident that what your pious clemency has promised, you
are powerful to carry out, in order that what has been vowed and

800

promised to God by the religious philanthropy beyond your Christian
power, may nevertheless be fulfilled by the aid of his omnipotency.

Wherefore let praise by all Christian nations, and eternal memory, and
frequent prayer be poured forth before the Lord Christ, whose is the
cause, for your safety, and your triumphs, and your complete victory,
that the nations of the Gentiles, being impressed by the terror of the
supernal majesty, may lay down most humbly their necks beneath the
scepter of your most powerful rule, that the power of your most pious
kingdom may continue until the ceaseless joy of the eternal kingdom
succeeds to this temporal reign. Nor could anything be found more likely
to commend the clemency of your unconquerable fortitude to the divine
majesty, than that those who err from the rule of truth should be repelled
and the integrity of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith should be
everywhere set forth and preached.

Moreover, most pious and God-instructed sons and lords, if the
Archbishop of the Church of Constantinople shall choose to hold and to
preach with us this most unblameable rule of Apostolic doctrine of the
Sacred Scriptures, of the venerable synods, of the spiritual Fathers,
according to their evangelical understanding, through which the form of the
truth has been set forth by us through the assistance of the Spirit, there
will ensue great peace to them that love the name of God, and there will
remain no scandal of dissension, and that will come to pass which is
recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, when through the grace of the Holy
Spirit the people had come to the acknowledging of Christianity, all of us
will be of one heart and of one mind. But if (which God forbid!) he shall
prefer to embrace the novelty but lately introduced by others; and shall
ensnare himself with doctrines which are alien to the rule of orthodox truth
and of our Apostolic faith, to decline which as injurious to souls' these
have put off, despite the exhortation and admonitions of our predecessors
in the Apostolic See, down to this day, he himself should know what kind
of an answer he will have to give for such contempt in the divine
examination of Christ before the judge of all, who is in heaven, to whom
when he cometh to judgment also we ourselves are about to give an
account of the ministry of preaching the truth which has been committed
to us, or for the toleration of things contrary to the Christian religion: and
may we (as I humbly pray) preserve unconfusedly and freely, with

801

simplicity and purity, whole and undefiled, the Apostolic and Evangelical
rule of the right faith as we have received it from the beginning. And may
your most august serenity, for the affection and reverence which you bear
to the Catholic and Apostolic right faith, receive the perfect reward of
your pious labors from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the ruler with you
of your Christian empire, whose true confession you desire to preserve
undefiled, because nothing in any respect has been neglected or omitted by
your God-crowned clemency, which could minister to the peace of the
churches, provided always that the integrity of the true faith was
maintained: since God, the Judge of all, who disposes the ending of all
matters as he deems most expedient, seeks out the intent of the heart, and
will accept a zeal for piety. Therefore I exhort you, O most pious and
clement Emperor, and together with my littleness every Christian man
exhorts you on bended knee with all humility, that to all the God-pleasing
goodnesses and admirable imperial benefits which the heavenly
condescension has vouchsafed to grant to the human race through your
God-accepted care, this also you would order, for the reintegration of
perfect piety, to offer an acceptable sacrifice to Christ the Lord your
fellow-ruler, granting entire impunity, and free faculty of speech to each
one wishing to speak, and to urge a word in defense of the faith which he
believes and holds, so that it may most manifestly be recognized by all
that by no terror, by no force, by no threat or aversion any one wishing to
speak for the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, has been
prohibited or repulsed, and that all unanimously may glorify your imperial
(divinam) majesty, throughout the whole since of their lives for so great
and so inestimable a good, and may pour forth unceasing prayers to Christ
the Lord that your most strong empire may be preserved untouched and
exalted. The Subscription. May the grace from above keep your empire,
most pious lords, and place beneath its feet the neck of all the nations.

802

THE LETTER OF AGATHO AND OF THE ROMAN SYNOD OF

125 BISHOPS WHICH WAS TO SERVE AS AN INSTRUCTION

TO THE LEGATES SENT TO ATTEND THE SIXTH SYNOD.

{Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 677 et seqq., and in
Migne, Pat. Lat. Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1215 et seqq. [This last text, which is
Mansi 's, I have followed] . )

To the most pious Lords and most serene victors and conquerors, our own
sons beloved of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, Constantine, the great
Emperor, and Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses, Agatho, the bishop and
servant of the servants of God, together with all the synods subject to the
council of the Apostolic See.

[The Letter opens with a number of compliments to the Emperor, much in
style and matter like the introduction of the preceding letter. I have not
thought it worth while to translate this, but have begun at the doctrinal
part, which is given to the reader in full. (Labbe and Cossart, col. 682.)]

We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible; and in his only-begotten Son, who was
begotten of him before all worlds; very God of Very God, Light of Light,
begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, that is of the
same substance as the Father; by him were all things made which are in
heaven and which are in earth; and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver
of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and with the Father and the Son
together is worshipped and glorified; the Trinity in unity and Unity in
trinity; a unity so far as essence is concerned, but a trinity of persons or
subsistences; and so we confess God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost; not three gods, but one God, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost: not a subsistency of three names, but one substance of three
subsistences; and of these persons one is the essence, or substance or
nature, that is to say one is the godhead, one the eternity, one the power,
one the kingdom, one the glory, one the adoration, one the essential will
and operation of the same Holy and inseparable Trinity, which hath
created all things, hath made disposition of them, and still contains them.

803

Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity,
God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, in the
last days of the world for us and for our salvation came down from
heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy,
immaculate, ever- virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother
of God, that is to say according to the flesh which was born of her; and
was truly made man, the same being very God and very man. God of God
his Father, but man of his Virgin Mother, incarnate of her flesh with a
reasonable and intelligent soul: of one substance with God the Father, as
touching his godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood,
and in all points like unto us, but without sin. He was crucified for us
under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, was buried and rose again; ascended into
heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again
to judge both the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no
end.

And this same one Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, we acknowledge to subsist of and in two substances unconfusedly,
unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the difference of the natures being
by no means taken away by the union, but rather the proprieties of each
nature being preserved and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence,
not scattered or divided into two Persons, nor confused into one
composite nature; but we confess one and the same only-begotten Son,
God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, not one in another, nor one added to
another, but himself the same in two natures — that is to say in the
Godhead and in the manhood even after the hypostatic union: for neither
was the Word changed into the nature of flesh, nor was the flesh
transformed into the nature of the Word, for each remained what it was by
nature. We discern by contemplation alone the distinction between the
natures united in him of which inconfusedly, inseparably and
unchangeably he is composed; for one is of both, and through one both,
because there are together both the height of the deity and the humility of
the flesh, each nature preserving after the union its own proper character
without any defect; and each form acting in communion with the other
what is proper to itself. The Word working what is proper to the Word,
and the flesh what is proper to the flesh; of which the one shines with
miracles, the other bows down beneath injuries. Wherefore, as we confess

804

that he truly has two natures or substances, viz.: the Godhead and the
manhood, inconfusedly, indivisibly and unchangeably [united], so also the
rule of piety instructs us that he has two natural wills and two natural
operations, as perfect God and perfect man, one and the same our Lord
Jesus Christ. And this the apostolic and evangelical tradition and the
authority of the Holy Fathers (whom the Holy Apostolic and Catholic
Church and the venerable Synods receive), has plainly taught us.

[The letter goes on to say that this is the traditional faith, and is that which
was set forth in a council over which Pope Martin presided, and that those
opposed to this faith have erred from the truth, some in one way, and some
in another. It next apologizes for the delay in sending the persons ordered
by the imperial Sacra, and proceeds thus: (Labbe and Cossart, col. 686;
Migne, col. 1224).]

In the first place, a great number of us are spread over a vast extent of
country even to the sea coast, and the length of their journey necessarily
took much time. Moreover we were in hopes of being able to join to our
humility our fellow-servant and brother bishop, Theodore, the archbishop
and philosopher of the island of Great Britain, with others who have been
kept there even till today; and to add to these divers i bishops of this
council who have their sees in different parts, that our humble suggestion
[i.e., the doctrinal definition contained in the letters] might proceed from a
council of wide-spread influence, lest if only a part were cognizant of what
was being done, it might escape the notice of a part; and especially because
among the Gentiles, as the Longobards, and the Sclavi, as also the Franks,
the French, the Goths, and the Britains, there are known to be very many
of our fellow- servants who do not cease curiously to enquire on the
subject, that they may know what is being done in the cause of the
Apostolic faith: who as they can be of advantage so long as they hold the
true faith with us, and think in unison with us, so are they found
troublesome and contrary, if (which may God forbid!) they stumble at any
article of the faith. But we, although most humble, yet strive with all our
might that the commonwealth of your Christian empire may be shown to
be more sublime than all the nations, for in it has been rounded the See of
Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, by the authority of which, all
Christian nations venerate and worship with us, through the reverence of
the blessed Apostle Peter himself. {This is the Latin, which appears to me

805

to be corrupt, the Greek reads as follows: "The authority of which for the
truth, all the Christian nations together with us worship and revere,
according to the honor of the blessed Peter the Apostle himself.")

[The letter ends with prayers for constancy, and blessings on the State and
Emperor, and hopes for the universal diffusion and acceptance of the
truth.]

806

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION VIII.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 730.)

[The Emperor said]

Let George, the most holy archbishop of this our God-preserved city, and
let Macarius, the venerable archbishop of Antioch, and let the synod
subject to them [i.e., their suffragans] say, if they submit to the force (ei
gtoi%o{)oci xf| Suvocpei) of the suggestions sent by the most holy Agatho
Pope of Old Rome and by his Synod.

[The answer of George, with which all his bishops, many of them,
speaking one by one, agreed except Theodore of Metilene (who handed in
his assent at the end of the Tenth Session).]

I have diligently examined the whole force of the suggestions sent to your
most pious Fortitude, as well by Agatho, the most holy Pope of Old
Rome, as by his synod, and I have scrutinized the works of the holy and
approved Fathers, which are laid up in my venerable patriarchate, and I
have found that all the testimonies of the holy and accepted Fathers,
which are contained in those suggestions agree with, and in no particular
differ from, the holy and accepted Fathers. Therefore I give my
submission to them and thus I profess and believe.

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of
Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to
your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of
Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council
subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are
minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus

807

Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably,
undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who
have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation
in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we
anathematize.

[The Emperor's demand to Macarius. (Col. 739.)]

Let Macarius, the Venerable Archbishop of Antioch, who has now heard
what has been said by this holy and Ecumenical Synod [demanding the
expression of his faith], answer what seemeth him good.

[The answer of Macarius.]

I do not say that there are two wills or two operations in the dispensation
of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, but one will and one theandric
operation.

808

THE SENTENCE AGAINST THE MONOTHELITES

SESSION XIII.

(L. and C, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 943.)

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our
promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of
Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-protected city to Cyrus,
who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old
Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that
these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the
declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that
they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject
them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men
whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy
Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this
God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious
doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter,
who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with
them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the
most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion
to our most pious and God-preserved Lord and mighty Emperor, rejected,
because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we
define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that
there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized
Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we
found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view
and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal
letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy
City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with
the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy

809

approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as
salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that
it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great
Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor
that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many
years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a
new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord
preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of
the faith!

Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch
of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch!
Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic,
anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic,
anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!

To Paul

To Peter

To Macarius the heretic, anathema!

To Stephen

To Polychronius

To Apergius of Perga

To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox
and Ecumenical Council!

810

THE DEFINITION OF FAITH.

{Found in the Acts, Session XVIII. , L. and C, Concilia, Tom. VI., col.
1019.)

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the
grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and
mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of
Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called
Trullus, has decreed as follows.

The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man
in all things like unto us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared
expressly in the words of the Gospel, "I am the light of the world he that
followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
And again, "My peace I leave with, you, my peace I give unto you." Our
most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil
doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace,
and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united
the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and
Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had
prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight
path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to
the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318
holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next
in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the
adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in
Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer;
and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and
Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the
Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of
Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the
Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian),
renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the

811

impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod
inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the
318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the
other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of
every soul-destroying heresy.

The Nicene Creed of the 318 holy Fathers.

We believe, etc.

The Creed of the 150 holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople.

We believe, etc.

The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox
Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and
confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the
beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the
poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner
now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean
Theodoras, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter,
who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who
was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who
was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively
employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of
one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one
of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the
orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the
impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavoring craftily to
destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus
Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a
rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has
raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man
after his own heart, who as it is written, "has not suffered his eyes to
sleep nor his eyelids to slumber," until he has found a perfect declaration
of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to
the sentence spoken of God, "Where two or three are gathered together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them," the present holy and
Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as

812

well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of
ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor
Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one
will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord
Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal
suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most
holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his
God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of
Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the
same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council
called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles
which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and
addressed to the Oriental Bishops. Following the five holy Ecumenical
Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that
our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man,
one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity
and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and
human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his
Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things
like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages
according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our
salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly
and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same
Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly,
unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of
neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each
nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence,
not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same
only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as
the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself
hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us;
defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and
two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably,
inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two
natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the
impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as
resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent

813

will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the
divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is
called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh
is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: "I
came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of
the Father which sent me!" where he calls his own will the will of his
flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and
immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but
continued in its own state and nature (6 pep xe koc\ ^oyep) so also his
human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather
preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: "His will [i.e.,
the Savior's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified."

We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly,
inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say
a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher
Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: "For each form ((xopcpri) does
in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word,
namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which
pertains to the flesh."

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as
we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring
down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same
[Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he
exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness
and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our
Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our
true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in
which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through
the whole of his economic conversation (81 6Xr|c; outou xf|<; oiKovou.Kf|<;
ocvocoTpo(pf|<;) and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this
by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same
Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the
things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we

814

confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the
salvation of the human race.

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated
by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to
write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever
shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or
hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from
the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to
introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which
now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let
them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the
clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.

815

THE PROSPHONETICUS TO THE EMPEROR.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1047 et seqq.)

[This address begins with many compliments to the Emperor, especially for
his zeal for the true faith.]

But because the adversary Satan allows no rest, he has raised up the very
ministers of Christ against him, as if armed and carrying weapons, etc.

[The various heretics are then named and how they were condemned by the
preceding five councils is set forth.]

Things being so, it was necessary that your beloved of Christ majesty
should gather together this all holy, and numerous assembly.

Thereafter being inspired by the Holy Ghost, and all agreeing and
consenting together, and giving our approval to the doctrinal letter of our
most blessed and exalted pope, Agatho, which he sent to your mightiness,
as also agreeing to the suggestion of the holy synod of one hundred and
twenty-five fathers held under him, we teach that one of fire Holy Trinity,
our Lord Jesus Christ, was incarnate, and must be celebrated in two
perfect natures without division and without confusion. For as the Word,
he is consubstantial and eternal with God his father; but as taking flesh of
the immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he is perfect man,
consubstantial with us and made in time. We declare therefore that he is
perfect in Godhead and that the same is perfect likewise in manhood,
according to the pristine tradition of the fathers and the divine definition of
Chalcedon.

And as we recognize two natures, so also we recognize two natural wills
and two natural operations. For we dare not say that either of the natures
which are in Christ in his incarnation is without a will and operation: lest
in taking away the proprieties of those natures, we likewise take away the
natures of which they are the proprieties. For we neither deny rite natural
will of his humanity, or its natural operation: lest we also deny what is the
chief thing of the dispensation for our salvation, and lest we attribute

816

passions to the Godhead. For this they were attempting who have
recently introduced the detestable novelty that in him there is but one will
and one operation, renewing the malignancy of Arius, Apollinaris,
Eutyches and Severus. For should we say that the human nature of our
Lord is without will and operation, how could we affirm in safety the
perfect humanity? For nothing else constitutes the integrity of human
nature except the essential will, through which the strength of free-will is
marked in us; and this is also the case with the substantial operation. For
how shall we call him perfect in humanity if he in no wise suffered and
acted as a man? For like as the union of two natures preserves for us one
subsistence without confusion and without division; so this one
subsistence, shewing itself in two natures, demonstrates as its own what
things belong to each.

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two
natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we
cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous
novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius
and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople),
moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them
Honorius, who was the ruler (rcpoeSpov) of Rome, as he followed them in
these things. Besides these, with the best of cause we anathematize and
depose Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen
(or rather we should say master), who tried to defend the impiety of their
predecessors, and in short stirred up the whole world, and by their
pestilential letters and by their fraudulent institutions devastated
multitudes in every direction. Likewise also that old man Polychronius,
with an infantile intelligence, who promised he would raise the dead and
who when they did not rise, was laughed at; and all who have taught, or do
teach, or shall presume to teach one will and one operation in the incarnate
Christ... But the highest prince of the Apostles fought with us: for we had
on our side his imitator and the successor in his see, who also had set forth
in his letter the mystery of the divine word (GeoXoyiocc;) For the ancient
city of Rome handed thee a confession of divine character, and a chart
from the sunsetting raised up the day of dogmas, and made the darkness
manifest, and Peter spoke through Agatho, and thou, O autocratic King,

817

according to the divine decree, with the Omnipotent Sharer of thy throne,
didst judge.

But, O benign and justice-loving Lord, do thou in return do this favor to
him who hath bestowed thy power upon thee; and give, as a seal to what
has been defined by us, thy imperial ratification in writing, and so confirm
them with the customary pious edicts and constitutions, that no one may
contradict the things which have been done, nor raise any fresh question.
For rest assured, O serene majesty, that we have not falsified anything
defined by the Ecumenical Councils and by the approved fathers, but we
have confirmed them. And now we all cry out with one mind and one
voice, "O God, save the King! etc., etc."

[Then follow numerous compliments to the Emperor and prayers for his
preservation.]

818

LETTER OF THE COUNCIL TO ST. AGATHO.

(Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVIL, col. 1247 et seqq.; and
Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1071 et seqq.)

A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to
Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome.

The holy and ecumenical council which by the grace of God and the pious
sanction of the most pious and faithful Constantine, the great Emperor,
has been gathered together in this God-preserved and royal city,
Constantinople, the new Rome, in the Secretum of the imperial (Geioi)
sacri) palace called Trullus, to the most holy and most blessed pope of
Old Rome, Agatho, health in the Lord.

Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father];
and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power
of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honored sanctity, to
drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies
of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the
church. Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal
Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your
standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read
your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the
most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely
written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we
have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung
up, having been urged to making a decree by Constantine who divinely
reigns, and wields a most clement scepter. And by his help we have
overthrown the error of impiety, having as it were laid siege to the
nefarious doctrine of the heretics. And then tearing to pieces the
foundations of their execrable heresy, and attacking them with spiritual
and paternal arms, and confounding their tongues that they might not
speak consistently with each other, we overturned the tower built up by
these followers of this most impious heresy; and we slew them with
anathema, as lapsed concerning the faith and as sinners, in the morning

819

outside the camp of the tabernacle of God, that we may express ourselves
after the manner of David, in accordance with the sentence already given
concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore,
bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter.
Moreover, in addition to these, we justly subjected to the anathema of
heretics those also who live in their impiety which they have received, or,
to speak more accurately, in the impiety of these God — hated persons,
Apollinaris, Severus and Themestius, to wit, Macarius, who was the
bishop of the great city of Antioch (and him we also stripped deservedly
of his pastor' s robes on account of his impenitence concerning the
orthodox faith and his obstinate stubbornness), and Stephen, his disciple
in craziness and his teacher in impiety, also Polychronius, who was
inveterate in his heretical doctrines, thus answering to his name; and finally
all those who impenitently have taught or do teach, or now hold or have
held similar doctrines.

Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we
cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbors, nor exult with joy at their
unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more
grievously because of this thing; not thus, O venerable and sacred head,
have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be
both benign and man-loving in the highest degree; for he exhorts us to be
imitators of him in his priesthood so far as is possible, as becometh the
good, and to obtain the pattern of his pastoral and conciliatory
government. But also to true repentance the most Serene Emperor and
ourselves have exhorted them in various ways, and we have conducted the
whole matter with great religiousness and care. Nor have we been moved
to do so for the sake of gain, nor by hatred, as you can easily see from
what things have been done in each session, and related in the minutes,
which are herewith sent to your blessedness: and you will understand
from your holiness' s vicars, Theodore and George, presbyters beloved of
God, and from John, the most religious deacon, and from Constantine, the
most venerable sub-deacon, all of them your spiritual children and our
well-loved brethren. So too you will hear the same things from those sent
by your holy synod, the holy bishops who rightly and uprightly, in
accordance with your discipline, decreed with us in the first chapter of the
faith.

820

Thus, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and instructed by your doctrine, we
have cast forth the vile doctrines of impiety, making smooth the right path
of orthodoxy, being in every way encouraged and helped in so doing by
the wisdom and power of our most pious and serene Emperor
Constantine. And then one of our number, the most holy praesul of this
reigning Constantinople, in the first place assenting to the orthodox
compositions sent by you to the most pious emperor as in all respects
agreeable to the teaching of the approved Fathers and of the
God-instructed Fathers, and of the holy five universal councils, we all, by
the help of Christ our God, easily accomplished what we were striving
after. For as God was the mover, so God also he crowned our council.

Thereupon, therefore, the grace of the Holy Spirit shone upon us,
displaying his power, through your assiduous prayers, for the uprooting
of all weeds and every tree which brought not forth good fruit, and giving
command that they should be consumed by fire. And we all agree both in
heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the
life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible;
not 'removing the ancient landmarks, as it is written (God forbid!), but
remaining steadfast in the testimonies and authority of the holy and
approved fathers, and defining that, as of two and in two natures (to wit,
the divinity and the humanity) of which he is composed and in which he
exists, Christ our true God is preached by us, and is glorified inseparably,
unchangeably, unconfusedly, and undividedly; just so also we predicate of
him two natural operations, undividedly, incontrovertibly, unconfusedly,
inseparably, as has been declared in our synodal definition. These decrees
the majesty of our God-copying Emperor assented to, and subscribed
them with his own hand. And, as has been said, we rejected and
condemned that most impious and unsubstantial heresy which affirmed
but one will and one operation in the incarnate Christ our true God, and by
so doing we have pressed sore upon the crowd who confound and who
divide, and have extinguished the inflamed storm of other heresies, but we
have set forth clearly with you the shining light of the orthodox faith, and
we pray your paternal sanctity to confirm our decree by your honorable
rescript; through which we confide in good hope in Christ that his merciful
kindness will grant freely to the Roman State, committed to the care of our
most clement Emperor, stability; and will adorn with daily yokes and

821

victories his most serene clemency; and that in addition to the good things
he has here bestowed upon us, he will set your God-honored holiness
before his tremendous tribunal as one who has sincerely confessed the true
faith, preserving it unsullied and keeping good ward over the orthodox
flocks committed to him by God.

We and all who are with us salute all the brethren in Christ who are with
your blessedness.

822

EXCURSUS ON THE CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS.

To this decree attaches not only the necessary importance and interest
which belongs to any ecumenical decision upon a disputed doctrinal
question with regard to the incarnation of the Son of God, but an
altogether accidental interest, arising from the fact that by this decree a
Pope of Rome is stricken with anathema in the person of Honorius. I need
hardly remind the reader how many interesting and difficult questions in
theology such an action on the part of an Ecumenical Council raises, and
how all important, not to say vital, to such as accept the ruling of the
recent Vatican Council, it is that some explanation of this fact should be
arrived at which will be satisfactory. It would be highly improper for me
in these pages to discuss the matter theologically. Volumes on each side
have been written on this subject, and to these I must refer the reader, but
in doing so I hope I may be pardoned if I add a word of counsel — to read
both sides. If one's knowledge is derived only from modern Eastern,
Anglican or Protestant writers, such as "Janus and the Council," the Pere
Gratry's "Letters," or Littledale's controversial books against Rome, one
is apt to be as much one-sided as if he took his information from Cardinal
Baronius, Cardinal Bellarmine, Rohrbacher's History, or from the recent
work on the subject by Pennacchi. Perhaps the average reader will hardly
find a more satisfactory treatment than that by Bossuet in the Defensio.
(Liber VII., cap. xxi, etc.)

It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman
Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be
treated. Pennacchi, in his work referred to above, is of opinion that
Honorius' s letters were strictly speaking Papal decrees, set forth
auctoritate apostolica, and therefore irreformable, but he declares, contrary
to the opinion of almost all theologians and to the decree of this Council,
that they are orthodox, and that the Council erred in condemning them; as
he expresses it, the decree rests upon all error in facto dogmatico. To save
an Ecumenical Synod from error, he thinks the synod ceased to be
ecumenical before it took this action, and was at that time only a synod of
a number of Orientals! Cardinal Baronius has another way out of the

823

difficulty. He says that the name of Honorius was forged and put in the
decree by an erasure in the place of the name of Theodore, the quondam
Patriarch, who soon after the Council got himself restored to the
Patriarchal position. Baronius moreover holds that Honorius' s letters have
been corrupted, that the Acts of the Council have been corrupted, and, in
short, that everything which declares or proves that Honorius was a
heretic or was condemned by an Ecumenical Council as such, is
untrustworthy and false. The groundlessness, not to say absurdity, of
Baronius' s view has been often exposed by those of his own communion,
a brief but sufficient summary of the refutation will be found in Hefele,
who while taking a very halting and unsatisfactory position himself, yet is
perfectly clear that Baronius' s contention is utterly indefensible.

Most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact
of Pope Honorius' s condemnation (which Baronius denies), and the
monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles, but they are
of opinion that these letters were not his ex cathedra utterances as Doctor
Universalis, but mere expressions of the private opinion of the Pontiff as a
theologian. With this matter we have no concern in this connection.

I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply
the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the
Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the
beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed "Anathema to the heretic
Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc."

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that
"the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope
of Old Rome, etc."

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that "Honorius,
formerly bishop of Rome" they had "punished with exclusion and
anathema" because he followed the monothelites.

824

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it "has slain with
anathema Honorius."

7. The imperial decree speaks of the "unholy priests who infected the
Church and falsely governed" and mentions among them "Honorius, the
Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself."
The Emperor goes on to anathematize "Honorius who was Pope of Old
Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and
strengthened the heresy."

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says
that he too anathematized Honorius.

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in
the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its
decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius' s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is
evident from Anastasius's life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope
from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by
Gregory II., "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new
heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base
assertion of the heretics."

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the
name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth
Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: "They suppress as far as
they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman
Breviary. Rave they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides,
and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more
studiously put out of sight."

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can
question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and
anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

825

THE IMPERIAL EDICT POSTED IN THE THIRD ATRIUM OF THE
GREAT CHURCH NEAR WHAT IS CALLED DICYMBALA.

In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Savior, the
most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an
Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people
living in this God-preserved and royal city.

[The document is very long, Hefele gives the following epitome, which is
all sufficient for the ordinary reader, who will remember that it is an Edict
of the Emperor and not anything proceeding from the council.]

Hefele 's Epitome (Hist, of the Councils, Vol. v., p. 178).

"The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan
and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also
contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently.
Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the
Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and
published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to
confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended
confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and
operations.) As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he
anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator
and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius,
who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the
heresy (to Korea 7tdvToc totjtok; at>vaipeTr|v koci auvSpopov koci
pe(3aicoxr|v xf|<; ocipeaeax^) further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one
henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and
one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved.
Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or
cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property
and loss of the girdle (Cfhvr\); if a private person, banished from the
residence and all other cities."

826

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO;

OFTEN CALLED

THE QUINISEXT COUNCIL,

A.D. 692.

Elenchus.

Introductory Note.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Excursus to Canon VI., On the Marriage of the Clergy.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in this
volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it
must not for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm
that these canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by
which they were adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in
view of its constitution or of the subsequent treatment by the Church of
its enactments.

It is true that it claimed at the time an ecumenical character, and styled
itself such in several of its canons, it is true that in the mind of the
Emperor Justinian II., who summoned it, it was intended to have been
ecumenical. It is the that the Greeks at first declared it to be a continuation
of the Sixth Synod and that by this name they frequently denominate and
quote its canons. But it is also true that the West was not really
represented at it at all (as we shall see presently); that when the Emperor

827

afterwards sent the canons to the Pope to receive his signature, he
absolutely refused to have anything to do with them; and it is further true
that they were never practically observed by the West at all, and that even
in the East their authority was rather theoretical than real.

(Fleury. Histoire Ecclesiastique, Livre XL. Chap, xlix.)

As the two last General Councils (in 553 and in 681)had not made any
Canons, the Orientals judged it suitable to supply them eleven years after
the Sixth Council, that is to say, the year 692, fifth indiction. For that
purpose the Emperor Justinian convoked a Council, at which 211 Bishops
attended, of whom the principal were the four Patriarchs, Paul of
Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of
Antioch. Next in the subscriptions are named John of Justinianopolis,
Cyriacus of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Basil of Gortyna in Crete, who says
that he represents the whole Council of the Roman Church, as he had said
in subscribing the Sixth Council. But it is certain otherwise that in this
latter council there were present Legates of the Holy See. This council, like
the Sixth, assembled in the dome of the palace called in Latin Trullus,
which name it has kept. It is also named in Latin Quinisextum, in Greek
Penthecton, as one might say, the fifth-sixth, to mark that it is only the
supplement of the two preceding Councils, though properly it is a distinct
one.

The intention was to make a body of discipline to serve thenceforth for
the whole Church, and it was distributed into 102 Canons.

To this statement by Fleury some additions must be made. First, with
regard to the date of the synod. This is not so certain as would appear at
first sight. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the patriarch Tarasius of
Constantinople asserted that, "four or five years after the sixth Ecumenical
Council the same bishops, in a new assembly under Justinian II. had
published the [Trullan] Canons mentioned," and this assertion the Seventh
Council appears to have accepted as true, if we understand the sixth
session aright. Now were this statement true, the date would be probably
686, but this is impossible by the words of the council itself, where we
find mention made of the fifteenth of January of the past 4th indiction, or
the year of the world, 6109. To make this agree at all, scholars tell us that
for 4:must be read 14:But the rest of the statement is equally erroneous,

828

the bishops were not the same, as can readily be seen by comparing the
subscriptions to the Acts. The year of the world 6109 is certainly wrong,
and so other scholars would read 6199, but here a division takes place, for
some reckon by the Constantinopolitan era, and so fix the date at 691, and
others following the Alexandrian era fix it at 706. But this last is certainly
wrong, for the canons were sent for signature to Pope Sergius, who died as
early as 701. Hefele's conclusion is as follows:

(Hefele. Hist, of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 222.)

The year 6199 of the Constantinopolitan era coincides with the year 691
after Christ and the IVth Indiction ran from September 1, 690, to August
31, 691. If then, our Synod, in canon iij., speaks of the 15th of January in
the past Indiction IV., it means January 691; but it belongs itself, to the
Vth Indiction, i.e., it was opened after September 1, 691, and before
September 1, 692.

As this is not a history of the Councils but a collection of their decrees and
canons with illustrative notes, the only other point to be considered is the
reception these canons met with.

The decrees were signed first by the Emperor, the next place was left
vacant for the Pope, then followed the subscriptions of the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, the whole number
being 211, bishops or representatives of bishops. It is not quite certain
whether any of the Patriarchs were present except Paul of Constantinople;
but taking it all in all the probability is in favor of their presence. Blank
places were left for the bishops of Thessalonica, Sardinia, Ravenna and
Corinth. The Archbishop of Gortyna in Crete added to his signature the
phrase "Holding the place of the holy Church of Rome in every synod."
He had in the same way signed the decrees of III. Constantinople, Crete
belonging to the Roman Patriarchate; as to whether his delegation on the
part of the Roman Synod continued or was merely made to continue by
his own volition we have no information. The ridiculous blunder of
Balsamon must be noted here, who asserts that the bishops whose names
are missing and for which blank places were left, had actually signed.

Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him,
rejected them as "lacking authority" (invalidi) and described them as

829

containing "novel errors." With the efforts to extort his signature we have
no concern further than to state that they signally failed. Later on, in the
time of Pope Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a
course subsequently in the ninth century thus expressed by Pope John
VIII. , "he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith,
good morals, and the decrees of Rome," a truly notable statement! Nearly
a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees
in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth
Synod. "All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which
rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained
that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the
Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images." Here the
reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII.

Hefele's summing up of the whole matter is as follows:

(Hefele, Hist, of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 242.)

That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice ascribed the Trullan canons
to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek
spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks.
They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in
their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the
ratification of the Holy See. Thus far Hefele, but it seems that Gratian's
statement on the subject in the Decretum should not be omitted here. (Pars
I. Dist. XVI., c. v.)

"Canon V. The Sixth Synod is confirmed by the authority of Hadrian.

"I receive the Sixth Synod with all its canons.

"Gratian. There is a doubt whether it set forth canons but this is easily
removed by examining the fourth session of the Vllth [Vlth by mistake,
vide Roman Correctors' note] Synod.

"For Peter the Bp. ofNicomedia says:

"C. VI. The Sixth Synod wrote canons.

"I have a book containing the canons of the holy Sixth Synod. The
Patriarch said: 1 . Some are scandalized through their ignorance of these

830

canons, saying: Did the Sixth Synod make any canons? Let them know
then that the Sixth Holy Synod was gathered together under Constantine
against those who said there is one operation and one will in Christ, in
which the holy Fathers anathematized these as heretics and explained the
orthodox faith.

"II. Pars 2. And the synod was dissolved in the XlVth year of
Constantine. After four or five years the same holy Fathers met together
under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and promulgated the
aforementioned canons, of which let no one have any doubt. For they who
under Constantine were in synod, these same bishops under Justinian
subscribed to all these canons. For it was fitting that a Universal Synod
should promulgate ecclesiastical canons. Item: 3. The Holy Sixth Synod
after it promulgated its definition against the Monothelites, the emperor
Constantine who had summoned it, dying soon after, and Justinian his son
reigning in his stead, the same holy synod divinely inspired again met at
Constantinople four or five years afterwards, and promulgated one
hundred and two canons for the correction of the Church.

"Gratian. From this therefore it may be gathered that the Sixth Synod was
twice assembled: the first time under Constantine and then passed no
canons; the second time under Justinian his son, and promulgated the
aforesaid canons."

Upon this passage of Gratian' s the Roman Correctors have a long and
interesting note, with quotations from Anastasius, which should be read
with care by the student but is too long to cite here.

I close with some eminently wise remarks by Prof. Michaud.

(E. Michaud, Discussion sur lea Sept Conciles (Ecumeniques, p. 272.)

Upon the canons of this council we must remark:

1. That save its acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the six Ecumenical
Councils, which is contained in the first canon, tiffs council had an
exclusively disciplinary character; and consequently if it should be
admitted by the particular churches, these would always remain, on
account of their autonomy, judges of the fitness or non-suitability of the
practical application of these decisions.

831

2. That the Easterns have never pretended to impose this code upon the
practice of the Western Churches, especially as they themselves do not
practice everywhere the hundred and two canons mentioned. All they
wished to do was to maintain the ancient discipline against the abuses and
evil innovations of the Roman Church, and to make her pause upon the
dangerous course in which she was already beginning to enter.

3. That if among these canons, some do not apply to the actual present
state of society, e.g., the 8th, 10th, 11th, etc.; if others, framed in a spirit
of transition between the then Eastern customs and those of Rome, do not
appear as logical nor as wise as one might desire, e.g., the 6th, 12th, 48th,
etc., nevertheless on the other hand, many of them are marked with the
most profound sagacity.

832

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1 135 et seqq.)

CANON I

That order is best of all which makes every word and act begin and end in
God. Wherefore that piety may be clearly set forth by us and that the
Church of which Christ is the foundation may be continually increased and
advanced, and that it may be exalted above the cedars of Lebanon; now
therefore we, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that
the faith set forth by the God-chosen Apostles who themselves had both
seen and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any
innovation, unchanged and inviolate.

Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed
fathers who were assembled at Nice under Constantine our Emperor,
against the impious Arius, and the gentile diversity of deity or rather (to
speak accurately) multitude of gods taught by him, who by the unanimous
acknowledgment of the faithful revealed and declared to us the
consubstantiality of the Three Persons comprehended in the Divine
Nature, not suffering this faith to lie hidden under the bushel of ignorance,
but openly teaching the faithful to adore with one worship the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, confuting and scattering to the winds the
opinion of different grades, and demolishing and overturning the puerile
toyings fabricated out of sand by the heretics against orthodoxy.

Likewise also we confirm that faith which was set forth by the one
hundred and fifty fathers who in the time of Theoriesins the Elder, our
Emperor, assembled in this imperial city, accepting their decisions with
regard to the Holy Ghost in assertion of his godhead, and expelling the
profane Macedonius (together with all previous enemies of the truth) as

833

one who dared to judge Him to be a servant who is Lord, and who wished
to divide, like a robber, the inseparable unity, so that there might be no
perfect mystery of our faith.

And together with this odious and detestable contender against the truth,
we condemn Apollinaris, priest of the same iniquity, who impiously
belched forth that the Lord assumed a body unendowed with a soul,
thence also inferring that his salvation wrought for us was imperfect.

Moreover what things were set forth by the two hundred God-bearing
fathers in the city of Ephesus in the days of Theodosius our Emperor, the
son of Arcadius; these doctrines we assent to as the unbroken strength of
piety, teaching that Christ the incarnate Son of God is one; and declaring
that she who bare him without human seed was the immaculate
Ever- Virgin, glorifying her as literally and in very truth the Mother of
God. We condemn as foreign to the divine scheme the absurd division of
Nestorius, who teaches that the one Christ consists of a man separately
and of the Godhead separately and renews the Jewish impiety.

Moreover we confirm that faith which at Chalcedon, the Metropolis, was
set forth in accordance with orthodoxy by the six hundred and thirty
God-approved fathers in the time of Marcian, who was our Emperor,
which handed down with a great and mighty voice, even unto the ends of
the earth, that the one Christ, the son of God, is of two natures, and must
be glorified in these two natures, and which cast forth from the sacred
precincts of the Church as a black pestilence to be avoided, Eutyches,
babbling stupidly and inanely, and teaching that the great mystery of the
incarnation (oikovcojjAoc<;) was perfected in thought only. And together
with him also Nestorius and Dioseorus of whom the former was the
defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion [of the
two natures in the one Christ], both of whom fell away from the
divergence of their impiety to a common depth of perdition and denial of
God.

Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one
hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial
city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach
them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and
execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen,

834

and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek
myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and
deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of
their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead.
Moreover [they condemned] what things were written by Theodoret
against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of blessed Cyril,
and that letter which is said to have been written by Ibas.

Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod,
which first assembled in this imperial city in the time of Constantine, our
Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater
confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own
signet that which was written for the security of future generations. This
council taught that we should openly profess our faith that in the
incarnation of Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natural wills or
volitions and two natural operations; and condemned by a just sentence
those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the
one Lord Jesus Christ there is but one will and one operation; to wit,
Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city;
Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch; Stephen, who was his disciple, and
the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth from the communion
of the body of Christ our God.

And, to say so once for all, we decree that the faith shall stand firm and
remain unsullied until the end of the world as well as the writings divinely
handed down and the teachings of all those who have beautified and
adorned the Church of God and were lights in the world, having embraced
the word of life. And we reject and anathematize those whom they
rejected and anathematized, as being enemies of the truth, and as insane
ragers against God, and as lifters up of iniquity.

But if any one at all shall not observe and embrace the aforesaid pious
decrees, and teach and preach in accordance therewith, but shall attempt to
set himself in opposition thereto, let him be anathema, according to the
decree already promulgated by the up-proved holy and blessed Fathers,
and let him be cast out and stricken off as an alien from the number of

835

Christians. For our decrees add nothing to the things previously defined,
nor do they take anything away, nor have we any such power.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.

No innovation upon the faith of the Apostles to be allowed. The faith of the
Nicene fathers is perfect, which overthrows through the homousion the
doctrines ofArius who introduced degrees into the Godhead.

The Synod held under Theodosius the great shall be held inviolate, which
deposed Macedonius who asserted that the Holy Ghost was a servant.

The two hundred who under Theodosius the Younger assembled at
Ephesus are to be reversed for they expelled Nestorius who asserted that
the Lord was man and God separately (iSikcoc;)

Those who assembled at Chalcedon in the time of Marcion are to be
celebrated with eternal remembrance, who deposed Eutyches. who dared to
say that the great mystery was accomplished only in image, as well as
Nestorius and Dioscorus, observing equal things in an opposite direction.

One hundred and sixty-five were assembled in the imperial city by
Justinian, who anathematized Origen, for teaching periods (TtapioSotx;)
of bodies and souls, and Theodoret who dared to set himself up to oppose
the Twelve Chapters of Cyril.

At Constantinople a Synod was collected tinder Constantine which rejected
Honorius of Rome and Sergius, prelate of Constantinople, for teaching one
will and one operation.

836

ARISTENUS.

The fifth was held in the time of Justinian the Great at Constantinople
against the crazy (rcocp&cppovq) Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, who
remodeled the Greek figments, and stupidly said that the same bodies they
had joined with them would not rise again; and that Paradise was not
subject to the appreciation of the sense, and that it was not from God, and
that Adam was not formed in flesh, and that there would be an end of
punishment, and a restitution of the devils to their pristine state, and other
innumerable insane blasphemies.

837

CANON II

It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons,
received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also
handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should
from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the
healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly
through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous
matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the
Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in
their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better
to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by
no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the
pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise
upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers,
that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those
at Ancyra, further those at Neocaesarea and likewise those at Gangra, and
besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and
likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and
the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians,
and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of
Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this
heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarins and Theophilus
Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal
letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria;
and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the
Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocaesarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of
Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory,
Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of
Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the
same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same
Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city.
Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of

838

the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been
kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom
delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress or
disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them,
supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic
of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or
attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be
subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured
by it of his transgression.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

Whatever additions have been made through guile by the heterodox in the
Apostolic Constitutions edited by Clement, shall be cut out.

This canon defines what canons are to be understood as having received
the sanction of ecumenical authority, and since these canons of the Council
in Trullo were received at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in its first canon
as the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical (of which the Quinisext claimed to
be a legitimate continuation) there can be no doubt that all these canons
enumerated in this canon are set forth for the guidance of the Church.

With regard to what councils are intended: there is difficulty only in two
particulars, viz., the "Council of Constantinople under Nectarius and
Theophilus," and the "Council under Cyprian;" the former must be the
Council of 394, and the latter is usually considered to be the III. Synod of
Carthage, A.D. 257.

839

FLEURY.

(H.E. Liv. xl., chap xlix.)

The Council of Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus of
Alexandria must be that held in 394, at the dedication of Ruffinus's
Church; but we have not its canons.... "The canon published by St.
Cyprian for the African Church alone." It is difficult to understand what
canon is referred to unless it is the preface to the council of St. Cyprian
where he says that no one should pretend to be bishop of bishops, or to
oblige his colleagues to obey him by tyrannical fear.

It will be noticed that while the canon is most careful to mention the exact
number of Apostolic canons it received, thus deciding in favor of the larger
code, it is equally careful not to assign them an Apostolic origin, but
merely to say that they had come down to them "in the name of the
Apostles. In the face of this it is strange to find Balsamon saying,
"Through this canon their mouth is stopped who say that 85 canons were
not set forth by the holy Apostles;" what the council did settle, so far as
its authority went, was the number not the authorship of the canons. This,
I think, is all that Balsamon intended to assert, but his words might easily
be quoted as having a different meaning.

This canon is found, in part, in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XVI, c. VII.

840

CANON III

Since our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and
ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those
who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others,
and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of
the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice
apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the
pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now
whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of
exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this
heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration,
so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God
requires, that neither gentleness fall into license, nor severity into
harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number
of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and
have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in
the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent
of it, be subjected to canonical deposition: but that they who are involved
in this disorder of a second marriage, but before our decree have
acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut off their sin, and have put far
from them this strange and illegitimate connection, or they whose wives
by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned to repentance of
their own accord, having learnt continence, and having quickly forgotten
their former iniquities, whether they be presbyters or deacons, these we
have determined should cease from all priestly ministrations or exercise,
being under punishment for a certain time, but should retain the honor of
their seat and station, being satisfied with their seat before the laity and
begging with tears from the Lord that the transgression of their ignorance
be pardoned them: for unfitting it were that he should bless another who
has to tend his own wounds. But those who have been married to one
wife, if she was a widow, and likewise those who after their ordination
have unlawfully entered into one marriage that is, presbyters, and deacons,
and subdeacons, being debarred for some short time from sacred
ministration, and censured, shall be restored again to their proper rank,
never advancing to any further rank, their unlawful marriage being openly

841

dissolved. This we decree to hold good only in the case of those that are
involved in the aforesaid faults up to the fifteenth (as was said) of the
month of January, of the fourth Indiction, decreeing from the present time,
and renewing the Canon which declares, that he who has been joined in
two marriages after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be bishop,
or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list; in like manner, that
he who has taken a widow, or a divorced person, or a harlot, or a servant,
or an actress, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the
sacerdotal list.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

Priests who shall have contracted second marriages and will not give them
up are to be deposed. But those who leave off the wickedness, let them
cease for a fixed period. For he that is himself wounded does not bless. But
who are implicated in nefarious marriage and who after ordination have
contracted marriage, after a definite time they shall be restored to their
grade, provided they remain without offense, having plainly brown off the
marriage. But if after it shall have been prohibited by this decree they
attempt to do so they shall remain deposed.

ZONARAS

What things pertain to this third canon are only adapted to the time in
which the canon was passed; and afterwards are of no force at all. But
what things the Fathers wished to be binding on posterity are contained in
the seventeenth and eighteenth canons of the holy Apostles, which as
having been neglected during the course of time this synod wished to
renew.

842

VAN ESPEN

It is clear from this canon that the Emperor very especially intended that
the indulgence which the Church of Constantinople extended to its
presbyters and deacons in allowing them the use of marriage entered into
before ordination, should not be allowed to go any further, nor to be an
occasion for the violation of that truly Apostolic canon, "The bishop, the
presbyter, and the deacon must be the husband of one wife." I. Tim. 3:2.

For never did the Constantinopolitan nor any other Eastern Church allow
by canon a digamist (or a man successively the husband of many wives) to
be advanced to the order of presbyter or deacon, or to use any second
marriage.

ANTONIO PEREIRA.

(Tentativa Theologica. [Eng. trans.] III. Principle, p. 79.)

In the same manner a second marriage always, and everywhere,
incapacitated the clergy for Holy Orders and the Episcopate. This appears
from St. Paul, 1 Timothy chap. 3., and Titus, chap. L, and it was expressly
enacted by the sixteenth of the Apostolical Canons, renewed by the Popes
Siricius, Innocent and Leo the Great, and may be gathered from the ancient
fathers and councils generally received in the Church

Nevertheless we know from Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, that many
bishops remarkable for their learning and sanctity, frequently dispensed
with this Apostolical law; as Alexander of Antioch, Acacius of Berea,
Prayline of Jerusalem, Proclus of Constantinople, and others, by whose
example Theodoret defends his own conduct in the case of Irenaaeus, in
ordaining him Archbishop of Tyre, although he had been twice married.
But what is more surprising in this matter is that, notwithstanding the
eleventh Decretal of Siricius, and the twelfth of Innocentius the First, that
they who had either been twice married, or had married widows, were
incapable of ordination, and ought to be deposed; the Council of Toledo,
Canon 3, and the First Council of Orange, Canon 25, both dispensed with

843

these Pontifical laws. The first, in order that those who had married
widows might remain in holy orders; the second, that such as had twice
married might be promoted to the order of subdeacon. Socrates also
observes that although it was a general law not to admit catechumens to
orders, the bishops of Alexandria were in the habit of promoting such to
the order of readers and singers.

FLEURY.

(H. E., Liv. XL., chap. 1.)

These canons of the Council of Trullo have served ever since to the Greeks
and to all the Christians of the East as the universal rule with regard to
clerical continence, and they have been now in full force for a thousand
years. That is to say, It is not permitted to men who are clerics in Holy
Orders to marry after their ordination. Bishops must keep perfect
continence, whether before their consecration they are married or not.
Priests, deacons, and subdeacons already married can keep their wives and
live with them, except on the days they are to approach the holy
mysteries.

844

CANON IV.

If any bishop, presbyter, deacon, sub-deacon, lector, cantor, or
door-keeper has had intercourse with a woman dedicated to God, let him
be deposed, as one who has corrupted a spouse of Christ, but if a layman
let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

A cleric coupled to a spouse of God shall be deposed In the case of a
layman he shall be cut off.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXVIL, Q. I., c. vj.

A layman ravishing a nun, by secular law was punished by death.
Balsamon gives the reference thus: V Cap. primi tit. iiij. lib. Basilic, or
cxxiij. Novel.

845

CANON V

Let none of those who are on the priestly list possess any woman or maid
servant, beyond those who are enumerated in the canon as being persons
free from suspicion, preserving himself hereby from being implicated in
any blame. But if anyone transgresses our decree let him be deposed. And
let eunuchs also observe the same rule, that by foresight they may be free
of censure. But those who transgress, let them be deposed, if indeed they
are clerics; but if laymen let them be excommunicated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

A priest, even if a eunuch, shall not have in his house a maid or other
woman except those on whom no suspicion can light.

See Canon III., of First Ecumenical Council at Nice. This canon adds
Eunuchs.

846

CANON VI

Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced
to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we
also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for
any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract
matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if
any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful
marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be
done.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

If any ordained person contracts matrimony, let him be deposed. If he
wishes to be married he should become so before his ordination.

Aristenus points out how this canon annuls the tenth canon of Ancyra,
which allows a deacon and even a presbyter to marry after ordination and
continue in his ministry, provided at the time of his ordination he had in
the presence of witnesses declared his inability to remain chaste or his
desire to marry. This present canon follows the XXVIth of the Apostolic
canons.

The last clause of this canon, limited in its application to subdeacons, is
found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist.
XXXIL, c. vi.

847

EXCURSUS ON THE MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY.

On this subject there is a popular misconception which must first be
removed. In the popular mind today there is no distinction between "a
married clergy" being allowed, and "the marriage of the clergy" being
allowed; even theological writers who have attained some repute have
confused these two things in the most unfortunate and perplexing fashion.
It will suffice to mention as an instance of this Bp. Harold Browne in his
book on the XXXIX. Articles, in which not only is the confusion above
spoken of made, but the very blunder is used for controversial purposes,
to back up and support by the authority of the ancient Church in the East
(which allowed a married clergy) the practice of the Nestorians and of the
modern Church of England, both of which tolerate the marriage of the
clergy, a thing which the ancient Church abhorred and punished with
deposition.

I cannot better express the doctrine and practice of the ancient Church in
the East than by quoting the words of the Rev. John Fulton in the
Introduction to the Third Edition of his Index Canonum. He says:
"Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, equally with other men, were forbidden to
put away their wives under pretext of religion. The case was different
when a man was unmarried at the time of his ordination. Then he was held
to have given himself wholly to God in the office of the Holy Ministry,
and he was forbidden to take back from his offering that measure of his
cares and his affections which must necessarily be given to the
maintenance and nurture of his family. In short, the married man might be
ordained, but with a few exceptions no man was allowed to marry after
ordination." In his "Digest" sub voce" Celibacy" he gives the earliest canon
law on the subject as follows: "None of the clergy, except readers and
singers may marry after ordination (Ap. Can. xxvi.); but deacons may
marry, if at their ordination they have declared an intention to do so
(Ancyra x.). A priest who marries is to be deposed (Neocaesarea L). A
deaconess who marries is to be anathematized (Chal. xv.); a monk or
dedicated virgin who marries, is to be excommunicated (Chal. xvi.). Those

848

who break their vows of celibacy are to fulfill the penance of digamists
(Ancyra xix.)."

We may then take it for a general principle that in no part of the ancient
Church was a priest allowed to contract holy matrimony; and in no place
was he allowed to exercise his priesthood afterwards, if he should dare to
enter into such a relation with a woman. As I have so often remarked it is
not my place to approve or disapprove this law of the Church, my duty is
the much simpler one of tracing historically what the law was and what it
is in the East and West today. The Reformers considered that in this, as in
most other matters, these venerable churches had made a mistake, but
neither the maintenance nor the disproof of this opinion in any way
concerns me, so far as this volume is concerned. All that is necessary for
me to do is to affirm that if a priest were at any time to attempt to marry,
he would be attempting to do that which from the earliest times of which
we have any record, no priest has ever been allowed to do, but which
always has been punished as a gross sin of immorality.

In tracing the history of this subject, the only time during which any real
difficulty presents itself is the first three centuries, after that all is much
clearer, and my duty is simply to lay the undisputed facts of the case
before the reader.

We begin then with the debatable ground. And first with regard to the
Lord, "the great High Priest of our profession," of course there can be no
doubt that he set the example, or — if any think that he was not a pattern
for the priests of his Church to follow — at least lived the life, of celibacy.
When we come to the question of what was the practice of his first
followers in this matter, there would likewise seem to be but little if any
reasonable doubt. For while of the Apostles we have it recorded only of
Peter that he was a married man, we have it also expressly recorded that in
his case, as in that of all the rest who had "forsaken all" to follow him, the
Lord himself said, "Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's
sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit eternal life."

There can be no doubt that St. Paul in his epistles allows and even
contemplates the probability that those admitted to the ranks of the clergy
will have been already married, but distinctly says that they must have

849

been the "husband of one wife," by which all antiquity and every
commentator of gravity recognizes that digamists are cut off from the
possibility of ordination, but there is nothing to imply that the marital
connection was to be continued after ordination. For a thorough treatment
of this whole subject from the ancient and Patristic point of view, the
reader is referred to St. Jerome.

The next stage in our progress is marked by the so-called Apostolical
Canons. Now for those who hold that these canons had directly or
indirectly the Apostles for their author, or that as we have them now they
are all of even sub-Apostolic date, the matter becomes more simple, for
while indeed these canons do not expressly set forth the law subsequently
formulated for the East, they certainly seem to be not inconsistent
therewith, but rather to look that way, especially Canons V. and LI. But
few will be found willing to support so extreme an hypothesis, and while
indeed many scholars are of opinion that most of the canons of the
collection we style "Apostolical," are ante-Nicene, yet they will not be
recognized as of more value than as so many mirrors, displaying what was
at their date considered pure discipline. It is abundantly clear that the
fathers in council in Trullo thought the discipline they were setting forth
to be the original discipline of the Church in the matter, and the discipline
of the West an innovation, but that such was really the case seems far
from certain. Thomassinus treats this point with much learning, and I shall
cite some of the authorities he brings forward. Of these the most
important is Epiphanius, who as a Greek would be certain to give the
tradition of the East, had there been any such tradition known in his time.
I give the three great passages.

"It is evident that those from the priesthood are chiefly taken from the
order of virgins, or if not from virgins, at least from monks; or if not from
the order of monks, then they are wont to be made priests who keep
themselves from their wives, or who are widows after a single marriage.
But he that has been entangled by a second marriage is not admitted to
priesthood in the Church, even if he be continent from his wife, or be a
widower. Anyone of this sort is rejected from the grade of bishop,
presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon. The order of reader, however, can be
chosen from all the orders these grades can be chosen from, that is to say
from virgins, monks, the continent, widowers, and they who are bound by

850

honest marriage. Moreover, if necessity so compel, even digamists may be
lectors, for such is not a priest, etc., etc."

"Christ taught us by an example that the priestly work and ornaments
should be communicated to those who shall have preserved their
continency after a single marriage, or shall have persevered in virginity.
And this the Apostles thereafter honestly and piously decreed, through
the ecclesiastical canon of the priesthood."

"Nay, moreover, he that still uses marriage, and begets children, even
though the husband of but one wife, is by no means admitted by the
Church to the order of deacon, presbyter, bishop, or subdeacon. But for all
this, he who shall have kept himself from the commerce of his one wife, or
has been deprived of her, may be ordained, and this is most usually the
case in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are most accurately
observed."

Nor is the weight of this evidence lessened, but much increased, by the
acknowledgment of the same father that in some places in his days the
celibate life was not observed by such priests as had wives, for he explains
that such a state of things had come about "not from following the
authority of the canons, but through the neglect of men, which is wont at
certain periods to be the case."

The witness of the Western Fathers although so absolutely and
indisputably clear is not so conclusive as to the East, and yet one passage
from St. Jerome should be quoted. "The Virgin Christ and the Virgin Mary
dedicated the virginity of both sexes. The Apostles were chosen when
either virgins or continent after marriage, and bishops, presbyters, and
deacons are chosen either when virgins, or widowers, or at least continent
forever after the priesthood."

It would be out of place to enter into any detailed argument upon the force
of these passages, but I shall lay before the reader the summing up of the
whole matter by a weighty recent writer of the Ultramontane Roman
School.

"Is the celibate an Apostolic ordinance? Bickel affirmed that it is, and
Funk denied it in 1878. Today [1896] canonists commonly admit that one
cannot prove the existence of any formal precept, either divine or

851

apostolic, which imposes the celibate upon the clergy, and that all the
texts, whether taken out of Holy Scripture or from the Fathers, on this
subject contain merely a counsel, and not a command." "In the Fourth
Century a great number of councils forbade bishops, priests, and deacons
to live in the use of marriage with their lawful wives.... But there does not
appear to have been any disposition to declare by law as invalid the
marriages of clerics in Holy Orders. In the Fifth and Sixth Centuries the
law of the celibate was observed by all the Churches of the West, thanks
to the Councils and to the Popes." "In the Seventh and down to the end of
the Tenth Century, as a matter of fact the law of celibacy was little
observed in a great part of the Western Church, but as a matter of law the
Roman Pontiffs and the Councils were constant in their proclamation of
its obligation." By the canonical practice of the unreformed West, the
reception of Holy Orders is an impedimentum dirimens matrimonii, which
renders any marriage subsequently contracted not only illicit but
absolutely null. On this diriment impediment the same Roman Catholic
writer says: "The diriment impediment of Holy Orders is of ecclesiastical
obligation and not of divine, and consequently the Church can dispense it.
This is the present teaching which is in opposition to that of the old
schools."

"There is no question of the nullity of the marriages contracted by clerics
before 1 139. At the Council of the Lateran of that year, Innocent II.
declared that these marriages contracted in contempt of the ecclesiastical
law are not true marriages in his eyes. His successors do not seem to have
insisted much upon this new diriment impediment, although it was
attacked most vigorously by the offending clergymen; but the School of
Bologna, the authority of which was then undisputed, openly declared for
the nullity of the marriages contracted by clerics in Holy Orders. Thus it is
that this point of law has been settled rather by teaching, than by any
precise text, or by any law of a known date."

It should not, however, be forgotten that although this is true with regard
to Pope Innocent II. in 1 139, it is also true that in 530 the Emperor
Justinian declared null and void all marriages contracted by clerics in Holy
Orders, and the children of such marriages to be spurious (spurii).

852

The reader will be interested in reading the answer on this point made by
King Henry VIII. to the letter sent him by the German ambassadors. I can
here give but a part translated into English. "Although the Church from the
beginning admitted married men, as priests and bishops, who were without
crime, the husband of one wife, (out of the necessity of the times, as
sufficient other suitable men could not be found as would suffice for the
teaching of the world) yet Paul himself chose the celibate Timothy; but if
anyone came unmarried to the priesthood and afterwards took a wife, he
was always deposed from the priesthood, according to the canon of the
Council of Neocaesarea which was before that of Nice. So, too, in the
Council of Chalcedon, in the first canon of which all former canons are
confirmed, it is established that a deaconess, if she give herself over to
marriage, shall remain under anathema, and a virgin who had dedicated
herself to God and a monk who join themselves in marriage, shall remain
excommunicated.... No Apostolic canon nor the Council of Nice contain
anything similar to what you assert, viz.: that priests once ordained can
marry afterwards. And with this statement agrees the Sixth Synod, in
which it was decreed that if any of the clergy should wish to lead a wife,
he should do so before receiving the Subdiaconate, since afterwards it was
by no means lawful; nor was there given in the Sixth Synod any liberty to
priests of leading wives after their priesting, as you assert. Therefore from
the beginning of the newborn Church it is clearly seen that at no time it
was permitted to a priest to lead a wife after his priesting, and nowhere,
where this was attempted, was it done with impunity, but the culprit was
deposed from his priesthood."

853

CANON VII

Since we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical
offices, and that hereby some of them with arrogancy and license sit
daringly before the presbyters: we have determined that a deacon, even if
in an office of dignity, that is to say, in whatever ecclesiastical office he
may be, is not to have his seat before a presbyter, except he is acting as
representative of his own patriarch or metropolitan in another city under
another superior, for then he shall be honored as filling his place. But if
anyone, possessed with a tyrannical audacity, shall have dared to do such
a thing, let him be ejected from his peculiar rank and be last of all of the
order in whose list he is in his own church; our Lord admonishing us that
we are not to delight in taking the chief seats, according to the doctrine
which is found in the holy Evangelist Luke, as put forth by our Lord and
God himself. For to those who were called he taught this parable: "When
ye are bidden by anyone to a marriage sit not down in the highest room
lest a more honorable man than thou shall have been bidden by him; and he
who bade thee and him come and say to thee: Give this man place, and
thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden,
sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who bade thee cometh he
may say to thee, Friend go up higher: then thou shalt have worship in the
presence of them that sit with thee. For whosoever exalteth himself shall
be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." But the same
thing also shall be observed in the remaining sacred orders; seeing that we
know that spiritual things are to be preferred to worldly dignity.

854

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

A deacon in the execution of his office, if he shall have occasion to sit in the
presence of presbyters, shall take the lowest place unless he be the
representative of the Patriarch or bishop.

Balsamon, Zonaras, and following them Van Espen point out that this
canon is a relaxation of the XVIII. Canon of Nice which punishes
presumptuous deacons not only with loss of rank in their grade, but also
with expulsion from their ministry.

Van Espen well remarks that the Fathers of this synod had in mind not
only the prescreation of the distinction between deacons and presbyters,
but also between those in ecclesiastical orders and those enjoying secular
dignities with regard to ecclesiastical matters, but who were not to gain
there from ecclesiastical precedence. This is what is meant by the last
clause of the canon.

Beveridge gives a list of these quasi ecclesiastical dignitaries as follows:
Magnus (Economus, Magno Sacello Praepositus, Magnus Vasorum
Custos, Chartophylax, Parvo Sacello Praepositus, Primus Defensor.

855

CANON vm

Since we desire that in every point the things which have been decreed by
our holy fathers may also be established and confirmed, we hereby renew
the canon which orders that synods of the bishops of each province be
held every year where the bishop of the metropolis shall deem best. But
since on account of the incursions of barbarians and certain other incidental
causes, those who preside over the churches cannot hold synods twice a
year, it seems right that by all means once a year — on account of
ecclesiastical questions which are likely to arise — a synod of the
aforesaid bishops should be holden in every province, between the holy
feast of Easter and October, as has been said above, in the place which the
Metropolitan shall have deemed most fitting. And let such bishops as do
not attend, when they are at home in their own cities and are in good
health, and free from all unavoidable and necessary business, be fraternally
reproved.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Whenever it is impossible to hold two synods a year, one at least shall be
celebrated, between ere and the month of October.

This canon under file name of the "Sixth Synod" is referred to in Canon
VI. of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (II. Nice), and the bishops of
Quinisext are called "Fathers."

VAN ESPEN

856

What at first was only allowed on account of necessity, little by little
passed into general law, and at last was received as law, that once a year
there was to be a meeting of the provincial synod.

857

CANON IX

Let no cleric be permitted to keep a "public house?" For if it be not
permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it
and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done
any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

If clerics are forbidden to enter public houses, much more are they
forbidden to keep them. Let them either give them up or be deposed.

Compare with this canon 54:of the Apostolic Canons; 24:of Laodicea; and
xliij. of the Synod of Carthage.

858

CANON X

A Bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives usury, or what is called
hecatostoe, let him desist or be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who takes usury shall be deposed unless he
stops doing so.

See notes on canon XVI. of Nice, and the Excursus thereto appended.

859

CANON XL

Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread
of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon
them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but
if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed,
but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL

Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as
physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed.

VAN ESPEN

Theodore Balsamon is of opinion that this canon does not forbid the eating
of unleavened bread; but that what is intended is the keeping of feasts in a
Jewish fashion, or in sacrifices to use unleavened bread (azymes), and this,
says Balsamon, on account of the Latins who celebrate their feasts with
azymes.

Canon 69:[i.e., lxx.] of those commonly called Apostolic forbids the
observance of festivals with the Jews; and declares it to be unlawful to
receive manuscula from them, but by this canon all familiar intercourse
with them is forbidden.

While there can be no doubt that in all the Trullan canons there is an
undercurrent of hostility to the West, yet in this canon I can see no such
spirit, and I think it has been read into it by the greater bitterness of later

860

times. This seems the more certain from the fact that there is nothing new
whatever in the provision with respect to the passover bread, vide canons
of Laodicea xxxvij . and xxxviij .

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa xxviij., can. xiii.

861

CANON XII

Moreover this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya
and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not
refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving
scandal and offense to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care
that all filings tend to the good of file flock placed in our harris and
committed to us, — it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind
shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow
what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring
for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the
ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach. For the divine Apostle
says: "Do all to the glory of God, give none offense, neither to the Jews,
nor to the Greeks, nor to the Church of God, even as I please all men in all
things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may
be saved. Be ye imitators of me even as I also am of Christ." But if any
shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII

Although it has been decreed that wives are not to be cast forth,
nevertheless that we may counselor the better, we give command that no
one ordained a bishop shall any longer live with his wife.

ARISTENUS.

The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon to
cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any

862

that shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed. But this
canon on the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his
wife after his consecration. But by this change no contempt is meant to be
poured out upon what had been established by Apostolic authority, but it
was made through care for the people's health and for leading on to better
things, and for fear that the sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.

VAN ESPEN

(In Can. 6:Apost.)

In the time of this canon [of the Apostles so called] not only presbyters
and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom
to have their wives; and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the
Sixth Council, commonly called in Trullo bishops were allowed to have
their wives.

(The same on this canon.)

But not only do they command [in this, canon] that bishops after their
consecration no longer have commerce with their own wives, but further,
they prohibit them even to presume to live with them.

ZONARAS

When the faith first was born and came forth into the world, the Apostles
treated with greater softness and indulgence those who embraced the truth,
which as yet was not scattered far and wide, nor did they exact from them
perfection in all respects, but made great allowances for their weakness
and for the inveterate force of the customs with which they were
surrounded, both among the heathen and among the Jews. But now, when
far and wide our religion has been propagated, more strenuous efforts were
made to enforce those things which pertain to a higher and holier life, as
our angelical worship increased day by day, and to insist on by law a life
of continence to those who were elevated to the episcopate, so that not
only they should abstain from their wives, but that they should have them

863

no longer as bed-fellows; and not only that they no longer admit them as
sharers of their bed, but they do not allow them even to stop under the
same roof or in the house.

864

CANON xm

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that
those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or
presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we,
preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the
lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward
firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving
them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if
anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon,
or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a
rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of
him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful
intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage
constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith:
"What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle
saith, "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou
bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who
assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said,
that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and
presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own
course [of ministration] . So that what has been handed down through the
Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain,
knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and
prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be
absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they
may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to
deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or
subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be
deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretense of
piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if
he persevere in this let him be deposed.

865

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

Although the Romans wish that everyone ordained deacon or presbyter
should put away his wife, we wish the marriages of deacons and presbyters
to continue valid and firm.

FLEURY.

(H.E., Livre XL., chap. 1.)

What is said in this canon, that the council of Carthage orders priests to
abstain from their wives at prescribed periods, is a misunderstanding of
the decree, caused either by malice or by ignorance. This canon is one of
those adopted by the Fifth Council of Carthage held in the year 400, and it
is decreed that subdeacons, deacons; priests, and bishops shall abstain
from their wives, following the ancient statutes, and shall be as though
they had them not. The Greek version of this canon has rendered the Latin
words priora statuta by these, idious horous, which may mean "fixed
times": for the translator read, following another codex, propria for priora.
Be this as it may, the Fathers of the Trullan council supposed that this
obliged the clergy only to continence at certain fixed times, and were not
willing to see that it included bishops as well.

VAN ESPEN

Although the Latin Church does not disapprove, as contrary to the law of
the Gospel the discipline of the Greeks which allows the use of marriage
to presbyters and deacons, provided it was contracted before ordination;
yet never has it approved this canon which with too great zeal condemns
the opposite custom, and rashly assigns great errors to the Roman Church.

866

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Dist. XXXL, c. xiij.

Antonius Augustinus in his proposed emendations of Gratian says (Lib. I.
dial, de emend. Grat. c. 8.): "This canon can in no way be received; for it is
written in opposition to the celibacy of the Latin priests, and openly is
against the Roman Church." But to me the note which Gratian appends
seems much more learned and true: "This however must be understood as
of local application; for the Eastern Church, to which the VI. Synod
prescribed this rule, did not receive a vow of chastity from the ministers of
the altar." It may be well to note here that by the opinion of most Latin
casuists the obligation to chastity among the Roman clergy rests upon the
vow and not upon any law of the Church binding thereto. This evidently
was the opinion of Gratian.

867

CANON xrv

Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this
particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of
age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our
Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty. In
like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty- five, nor a
deaconess before she is forty.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

A presbyter thirty years of age, a deacon twenty-five, and a deaconess
forty.

Compare Canon XL of Neocaesarea.

It may be interesting to note here that by the law of the Roman
Communion the canonical ages are as follows:

A subdeacon must have completed his twenty-first year, a deacon his
twenty- second, a priest his twenty-fourth, and a bishop his thirtieth.
None of the inferior clergy can hold a simple benefice before he has begun
his fourteenth year. Ecclesiastical dignities, such as Cathedral canonries,
cannot be conferred on any who have not finished the twenty- second year.
A benefice to which is attached a cure of souls can be given only to one
who is over twenty-four, and a diocese only to one who has completed his
thirtieth year. (Vide Ferraris, Bibliotheca Prompta.)

In the Anglican Communion the ages are, in England, for a bishop "fully
thirty years of age," for a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon

868

twenty-three: and in the United States, for a bishop thirty years of age, for
a priest twenty-four, and for a deacon twenty-one.

869

CANON XV.

A Subdeacon is not to be ordained under twenty years of age. And if any
one in any grade of the priesthood shall have been ordained contrary to the
prescribed time let him be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Those shall be chosen as Subdeacons who are twenty years of age.

This age seems first to have been fixed by the Second Council of Toledo
(circa, A.D. 535) in its first canon.

870

CANON XVI

Since the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by
the Apostles, and the synod of Neocaesarea in the canons which it put
forth determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons,
even if the city be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we,
having fitted the mind of the fathers to the Apostles' words, find that they
spoke not of those men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the
administration which pertains to the serving of tables. For the book of the
Acts reads as follows: "In those days, when the number of the disciples
was multiplied, there arose a murmuring dissension of the Grecians against
the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily
ministrations. And the Twelve called the multitude of the disciples with
them and said, It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve
tables. Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of
good report full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business. But we will give ourselves continually unto prayer and
unto the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole
multitude: and they chose Stephen a man full of faith and of the Holy
Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmends,
and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles."

John Chrysostom, a Doctor of the Church, interpreting these words,
proceeds thus: "It is a remarkable fact that the multitude was not divided
in its choice of the men, and that the Apostles were not rejected by them.
But we must learn what sort of rank they had, and what ordination they
received. Was it that of deacons? But this office did not yet exist in the
churches. But was it fine dispensation of a presbyter? But there was not
as yet any bishop, but only Apostles, whence I think it is clear and
manifest that neither of deacons nor of presbyters was there then the
name."

But on this account therefore we also announce that the aforesaid seven
deacons are not to be understood as deacons who served at the Mysteries,
according to the teaching before set forth, but that they were those to

871

whom a dispensation was entrusted for the common benefit of those that
were gathered together, who to us in this also were a type of philanthropy
and zeal towards those who are in need.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Whoever affirms that the number of deacons should be seven according to
the saying of the Acts, should know that the reference in that passage is not
to Deacons of the Mysteries but to such as serve tables.

Van Espen here reminds us that this is, as Zonaras calls attention to in his
scholion on this place, a correction rather than an interpretation of the
XVth Canon of Neocaesarea, and Balsamon also says the same. The only
interest that the matter possesses is that a canon which had been received
by the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) should receive such
treatment from such an assembly as the Synod in Trullo.

872

CANON XVII.

Since clerics of different churches have left their own churches in which
they were ordained and betaken themselves to other bishops, and without
the consent of their own bishop have been settled in other churches, and
thus they have proved themselves to be insolent and disobedient; we
decree that from the month of January of the past IV th Indiction no cleric,
of whatsoever grade he be, shall have power, without letters dimissory of
his own bishop, to be registered in the clergy list of another church.
Whoever in future shall not have observed this rule, but shall have brought
disgrace upon himself as well as on the bishop who ordained him, let him
be deposed together with him who also received him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Whoever receives and ordains a wandering cleric shall be deposed
together with him thus wickedly ordained.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XXL, Quaest., 2:can. j.

873

CANON xvm

Those clerics who in consequence of a barbaric incursion or on account of
any other circumstance have gone abroad, we order to return again to their
churches after the cause has passed away, or when the incursion of the
barbarians is at an end. Nor are they to leave them for long without cause.
If anyone shall not have returned according to the direction of this present
canon — let him be cut off until he shall return to his own church. And the
same shall be the punishment of the bishop who received him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIII

Whoever has emigrated on account of an invasion of the barbarians, shall
return to the Church to whose clergy he belongs as soon as the incursion
ceases. But if he shall not do so, he shall be cut off together with him to
whom he has gone.

BALSAMON

The Fathers are worthy of great praise. For having regard to the honor of
the ecclesiastical order and of each bishop, they have decreed that
clergymen, who from just and valid causes have gone forth without letters
dimissory from those who ordained them, should return to their own
clergy soon as the cause which drove them forth ceases; and that they
should not be enrolled on the clergy list of any other church. But
whosoever cannot be persuaded to return is to be cut off, as well as the
bishop who detains him. But someone will say, If a bishop who does such
a thing is cut off by his Metropolitan; and likewise if a Metropolitan
spurns this canon he is punished by the Patriarch. But if an autocephalous
archbishop or a Patriarch other than the Patriarch of Constantinople (for

874

he has a faculty for doing so) should be convicted of a breach of this
Canon, by whom would he be cut off? I suppose by the Supreme Pontiff
(oiouxu ov>\ napa xov \ieiCp\oq dp%iepecoc;).

875

CANON XIX

It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially
on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of
right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and
determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor
varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any
controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not
interpret it. otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their
writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in
composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill
they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of
the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good
and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel
their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their
minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and
work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

The prelates of the Church, especially upon Lord's days, shall teach
doctrine.

VAN ESPEN

How great an obligation of preaching rests upon bishops, the successors of
the Apostles, is evident from the words of St. Paul, "Christ sent me not to
baptize but to preach" (1 Corinthians 1:17), and his chief adjuration to

876

Timothy though Jesus Christ and his coming, was "Preach the Word" (2
Timothy 2:4.) For this reason the fathers formerly called the episcopate
the preaching-office (officium predicationis), as is evident from the
profession of Adelbert Morinensis, and the form of profession of a future
Archbishop. Both of these will be found in Labbe, appendix to Tom. VIIL,
of his Concilia.

COUNCIL OF TRENT.

(Sess. V., c. 2.)

The preaching of the Gospel is the chief work of bishops.

CONVOCATION OF CANTERBURY, A.D. 1571.

(Cardwell. Synodalia, Vol. I., p. 126.)

The clergy will be careful to teach nothing in their sermons to be
religiously held and believed by the people except what is agreeable to the
doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers
and Ancient Bishops have collected out of the same.

COUNCIL OF TRENT.

(Sess. IV.)

No one shall dare to interpret the Holy Scripture contrary to the
unanimous consent of the fathers.

877

CANON XX

It shall not be lawful for a bishop to teach publicly in any city which does
not belong to him. If any shall have been observed doing this, let him cease
from his episcopate, but let him discharge the office of a presbyter.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

The bishop of one city shall not teach publicly in another. If he shall be
shown to have dose so he shall be deprived of the episcopate and shall
perform the functions of a presbyter.

The meaning of this canon is most obscure. Balsamon and Zonaras think
that the Bishop is not to be deposed from his Episcopate, but only shorn
of his right of executing the Episcopal functions, so that he will virtually
be reduced to a presbyter. Ariseanus, on the other hand, considers the
deposition to be real and that this canon creates an exception to Canon
XXIX. ofChalcedon.

878

CANON XXI

Those who have become guilty of crimes against the canons, and on this
account subject to complete and perpetual deposition, are degraded to the
condition of layman. If, however, keeping conversion continually before
their eyes, they willingly deplore the sin on account of which they fell
from grace, and made themselves aliens therefrom, they may still cut their
hair after the manner of clerics. But if they are not willing to submit
themselves to this canon, they must wear their hair as laymen, as being
those who have preferred the communion of the world to the celestial life.
NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

Whoever is already deposed and reduced to the lay estate, if he shall
repent, let him continue deposed but be shorn. But if otherwise, he must let
his hair grow.

Beveridge wishes to read who have become canonically guilty of crimes,"
substituting kocvovik(S<; for kocvovikoi<;, in accordance with the Bodleian
and Amerbachian codices.

879

CANON XXII

Those who are ordained for money, whether bishops or of any rank
whatever, and not by examination and choice of life, we order to be
deposed as well as those also who ordained them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

Whoever is ordained for pay shall be deposed together with his ordainer.

VAN ESPEN

The present canon orders to be deposed not only the one simoniacally
ordained, but also his ordainer, ordering that ordinations should take place
on account, not of money, but of the excellence of the examination stood
by the candidate and on account of his uprightness of life. And it evidently
takes it for granted that, where money has been used, examination,
excellence of life, and consideration of merit enter but little into the matter,
or at least are paid no attention to.

880

CANON XXIII

That no one, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when giving the
immaculate Communion, shall exact from him who communicates fees of
any kind. For grace is not to be sold, nor do we give the sanctification of
the Holy Spirit for money; but to those who are worthy of the gift it is to
be communicated in all simplicity. But if any of those enrolled among the
clergy make demands on those he communicates let him be deposed, as an
imitator of the error and wickedness of Simon.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

Whoever shall demand an obolus or anything else for giving the spotless
communion shall be deposed.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decreturn,
Pars. II., Causa I., Quaest. I., can. 100, attributed to the VI. Synod. Ivo
reads, "From the Sixth Synod, III. Constantinople."

881

CANON XXIV

No one who is on the priestly catalogue nor any monk is allowed to take
part in horse-races or to assist at theatrical representations. But if any
clergyman be called to a marriage, as soon as the games begin let him rise
up and go out, for so it is ordered by the doctrine of our fathers. And if
any one shall be convicted of such an offense let him cease therefrom or be
deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

A clergyman or monk shall be deposed who goes to horse-races, or does
not leave nuptials before the players are brought in.

VAN ESPEN

Scarcely ever were these plays exhibited without the introduction of
something contrary to honesty and chastity. As Lupus here notes, the
word "obscene" has its derivation from these "scenic" representations.

Rightly therefore has it been forbidden by the sacred canons that the
clergy should witness any such plays.

In the second part of this canon by the words "ordered by the doctrine of
our fathers," the Synod understands the doctrine of the fathers of the
synod of Laodicea, which in its canon 54:condemned the same abuse.

Compare the canon given in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXIV. can. xix.

882

883

CANON XXV

Moreover we renew the canon which orders that country (aypoiKiKoc<;)
parishes and those which are in the provinces (ey%copiot)<;) shall remain
subject to the bishops who had possession of them; especially if for thirty
years they had administered them without opposition. But if within thirty
years there had been or should be any controversy on the point, it is
lawful for those who think themselves injured to refer the matter to the
provincial synod.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV

Rural and out of town parishes held for thirty years may be retained. But
within that time there may be a controversy.

Compare notes on canon XVII. of Chalcedon.

884

CANON XXVI

If a presbyter has through ignorance contracted an illegal marriage, while
he still retains the fight to his place, as we have defined in the sacred
canons, yet he must abstain from all sacerdotal work. For it is sufficient if
to such an one indulgence is granted. For he is until to bless another who
needs to take care of his own wounds, for blessing is the imparting of
sanctification. But how can he impart this to another who does not
possess it himself through a sin of ignorance? Neither then in public nor in
private can he bless nor distribute to others the body of Christ, [nor
perform any other ministry]; but being content with his seat of honor let
him lament to the Lord that his sin of ignorance may be remitted. For it is
manifest that the nefarious marriage must be dissolved, neither can the man
have any intercourse with her on account of whom he is deprived of the
execution of his priesthood.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVI

A priest who has fallen into an illicit marriage and been deposed, may still
have his seat, but only when he abstains for the future from his wickedness.

ARISTENUS.

If any presbyter before his ordination had married a widow, or a harlot, or
an actress, or any other woman such as are forbidden, in ignorance, he shall
cease from his priesthood but shall still have his place among the
presbyters. But such an illegitimate marriage, on account of which he was
deprived of the Sacred Ministry, must be dissolved.

885

VAN ESPEN

The sacred canon to which the Synod here refers is number xxvij. of St.
Basil in his Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius.

886

CANON XXVII

None of those who are in the catalogue of the clergy shall wear clothes
unsuited to them, either while still living in town or when on a journey:
but they shall wear such clothes as are assigned to those who belong to the
clergy. And if any one shall violate this canon, he shall be cut off for one
week.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVII

A clergyman must not wear an unsuitable dress either when traveling or
when at home. Should he do so, he shall be cut off for one week.

887

CANON XXVIII.

Since we understand that in several churches grapes are brought to the
altar, according to a custom which has long prevailed, and the ministers
joined this with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and distributed
both to the people at the same time, we decree that no priest shall do this
for the future, but shall administer the oblation alone to the people for the
quickening of their souls and for the remission of their sins. But with
regard to the offering of grapes as first fruits, the priests may bless them
apart [from the offering of the oblation] and distribute them to such as
seek them as an act of thanksgiving to him who is the Giver of the fruits
by which our bodies are increased and fed according to his divine decree.
And if any cleric shall violate this decree let him be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVIH

Grapes are by some joined with the unbloody sacrifice. It is hereby decreed
that no one shall for the future dare to do this.

VAN ESPEN

Similar blessings of fruit, and particularly of grapes, are found in more
recent rituals as well as in the ancient Greek Euchologions and the Latin
Rituales. In the Sacramentary of St. Gregory will be found a benediction of
grapes on the feast of St. Sixtus.

Cardinal Bona says (De Reb. Liturg, Lib. II., cap. xiv.), that immediately
before the words Semper bona creas, sanctificas, etc., if new fruits or any
other things adapted to human use were to be blessed, they were wont in

former times to be placed before the altar, and there to be blessed by the
priest; and when the benediction was ended with the accustomed words
"Through Christ our Lord," there was added the following prayer:
"Perquem haec omnia, etc.," which words are not so much to be referred to
the body and blood of Christ, as to the things to be blessed, which God
continually creates by renewing, and we ask that they may be sanctified
by his benediction to our use.

But in after ages when the fervor of the faithful had grown cold, that the
mass might not be too long, they were separated and yet the prayer
remained which, as said today over the consecrated species alone, can
hardly be understood.

This canon is found in a shortened form in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Pars. III. De Consecrat., Dist. II., can. vj.

Compare Canon of the Apostles number iv.

CANON XXIX

A Canon of the Synod of Carthage says that the holy mysteries of the
altar are not to be performed but by men who are fasting, except on one
day in the year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated. At that
time, on account perhaps of certain occasions in those places useful to the
Church, even the holy Fathers themselves made use of this dispensation.
But since nothing leads us to abandon exact observance, we decree that the
Apostolic and Patristic tradition shall be followed; and define that it is not
right to break the fast on the fifth feria of the last week of Lent, and thus
to do dishonor to the whole of Lent.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIX

Some of the Fathers after they had supped on the day of the Divine Supper
made the offering. However, it has seemed good to the synod that this
should not be done, and that the fast should not be broken upon the fifth
feria of the last week of Lent, and so the whole of Lent be dishonored.

Zonaras remarks that the "Apostolic and Patristic tradition" is a reference
to canon 69:of the Apostolic Canons and to canon 1. of Laodicea. See
notes on this last canon.

890

CANON XXX.

Willing to do all things for the edification of the Church, we have
determined to take care even of priests who are in barbarian churches.
Wherefore if they think that they ought to exceed the Apostolic Canon
concerning the not putting away of a wife on the pretext of piety and
religion, and to do beyond that which is commanded, and therefore abstain
by agreement with their wives from cohabitation, we decree they ought no
longer to live with them in any way, so that hereby they may afford us a
perfect demonstration of their promise. But we have conceded this to
them on no other ground than their narrowness, and foreign and unsettled
manners.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXX

Those priests who are in churches among the barbarians, if with consent
they have abstained from commerce with their wives shall never
afterwards have any commerce with them in any way.

FLEURY.

(Hist. EccL, Liv. XL., chap. 1.)

"Priests who are among the barbarians," that is to say, it would seem, in
Italy and in the other countries of the Latin rite. "Their narrowness and
foreign and unsettled manners," that is to say that according to them it is
an imperfection to aspire after perfect continence.

891

I do not think that this explanation of Fleury's can be sustained, and it
would seem that Van Espen is more near the truth when he says: "Some
priests in barbarous countries thought they should abstain after the Latin
custom even from wives taken before ordination. And although this was
contrary to the discipline of the Greeks, and also to Canon V. of the
Apostles, nevertheless the Fathers thought it might be tolerated, provided
such priests should also not live any longer with their wives." There seems
no reason to introduce anti-Roman bitterness where it is not already
found.

892

CANON XXXI

Clerics who in oratories which are in houses offer the Holy Mysteries or
baptize, we decree ought to do this with the consent of the bishop of the
place. Wherefore if any cleric shall not have so done, let him be deposed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXI

Thou may est not offer in an oratory in a private house without the consent
of the bishop.

On this whole subject the reader is referred to the curious and most
interesting volume published by Venantius Monaldini of Venice, in 1765. 1
cannot better give its scope than by copying out its title in full.
Commentarius Theologico-canonico-criticus De ecclcsiis, earum
reverentia, et asylo atque concordia sacerdotii, et imperii, auctore Josepho
Aloysio Assemani. Accesserunt tractatus el. virorum D. Josephi de Benis,
De Oratoriis Publicis; ac. R.P. Fortunati a Brixia De Oratoriis Domesticis,
in supplementum celeberrimi operis Joannis Baptistae Gattico De
Oratoriis Domesticis, et usu altaris portatilis .

893

CANON XXXII

Since it has come to our knowledge that in the region of Armenia they
offer wine only on the Holy Table, those who celebrate, the unbloody
sacrifice not mixing water with it, adducing, as authority thereof, John
Chrysostom, a doctor of the Church, who says in his interpretation of the
Gospel according to St. Matthew:

"And wherefore did he not drink water after he was risen again, but wine?
To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are
certain who use water in the Mysteries to shew that both when he
delivered the mysteries he had given wine and that when he had risen and
was setting before them a mere meal without raysteries, he used wine, 'of
the fruit,' saith he, 'of the vine.' But a vine produces wine, not water."
And from this they think the doctor overthrows the admixture of water in
the holy sacrifice. Now, lest on the point from this time forward they be
held in ignorance, we open out the orthodox opinion of the Father. For
since there was an ancient and wicked heresy of the Hydroparastatae (i.e.,
of those who offered water), who instead of wine used water in their
sacrifice, this divine, confuting the detestable teaching of such a heresy,
and showing that it is directly opposed to Apostolic tradition, asserted
that which has just been quoted. For to his own church, where the pastoral
administration had been given him, he ordered that water mixed with wine
should be used at the unbloody sacrifice, so as to shew forth the mingling
of the blood and water which for the life of the whole world and for the
redemption of its sins, was poured forth from the precious side of Christ
our Redeemer; and moreover in every church where spiritual light has
shined this divinely given order is observed.

For also James, the brother, according to the flesh, of Christ our God, to
whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil,
the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread
through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical
sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the
Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled

894

at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries
nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord
himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if
any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to
what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the
sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly
shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been
handed down.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXII

Chrysostom, when overthrowing the heresy of the Hydroparastatae, says:
"When the Lord suffered and rose again he used wine. " The Armenians,
laying hold on this, offer wine alone, not understanding that Chrysostom
himself, and Basil, and James used wine mixed with water; and left the
tradition that we should so make the offering. If, therefore, any one shall
offer wine alone, or water alone, and not the mixed [chalice] let him be
deposed.

VAN ESPEN

Justin Martyr in his Second Apology, Ambrose, or whoever was the
author of the books on the Sacraments (Lib. v., cap. L), Augustine and
many others make mention of this rite, and above all St. Cyprian, who
wrote a long epistle on the subject to Cecilius, and seeking the reason of
the ceremony as a setting forth of the union of the people, represented by
the water, with Christ, figured by the wine.

Another signification of this rite St. Augustine indicates in his sermon to
Neophytes, saying: "Take this in bread, which hung upon the Cross: Take

895

this in the cup which poured forth from the side," that is to say blood and
water.

Cardinal Bona (De Rebus Liturgies, Lib. II., cap. ix., n. 3 and 4) refers to
many ancient rituals in which a similar prayer is used to that found in the
Ambrosian rite, which says as the water is poured in: "Out of the side of
Christ there flowed forth blood and water together. In the name of the
Father, etc." Bona further notes that "The Greeks twice mingle water with
the wine, once cold water, when in the prosthesis they are preparing the
Holy Gifts, and the Priest pierces the bread with the holy spear, and says,
"One of the soldiers with a lance opened his side, and immediately there
flowed forth blood and water," and the deacon pours in wine and water.
From this it is evident that the Greeks agree with St. Augustine's
explanation.

For the second time the Greeks mix "hot water after consecration and
immediately before communion, the deacon begging from the priest a
blessing upon the warm water; and he blesses it in these words: 'Blessed
be:the fervor of thy Saints, now and ever and to the ages of age;. Amen.'
Then the deacon pours the water into the chalice, saying: 'The fervor of
faith, full of the Holy Spirit.'" So Cardinal Bona as above. The third
reason of this rite is assumed by some from the fact that Christ is believed
thus to have instituted this sacrament at the last supper; and this the
synod seems to intimate in the present canon when it says "as the Lord
himself delivered."

In this case the Greeks suppose that this rite was also handed down by
the Apostles, and this is evident from their citing the Liturgy of St. James,
which they believed to be a genuine work of his.

896

canon xxxm

Since we know that, in the region of the Armenians, only those are
appointed to the clerical orders who are of priestly descent (following in
this Jewish customs); and some of those who are even untonsured are
appointed to succeed cantors and readers of the divine law, we decree that
henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring any one into
the clergy, to pay regard to the descent of him who is to be ordained; but
let them examine whether they are worthy (according to the decrees set
forth in the holy canons) to be placed on the list of the clergy, so that they
may be ecclesiastically promoted, whether they are of priestly descent or
not; moreover, let them not permit any one at all to read in the ambo,
according to the order of those enrolled in the clergy, unless such an one
have received the priestly tonsure and the canonical benediction of his own
pastor; but if any one shall have been observed to act contrary to these
directions, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME Or CANON XXXHI

Whoever is worthy of the priesthood should be ordained whether he is
sprung of a priestly line or no. And he that has been blessed untonsured
shalt not read the Holy Scriptures at the ambo.

VAN ESPEN

Here not obscurely does the canon join the clerical tonsure received from
the bishop with the office of Reader, so much so that he that has been

897

tonsured by the bishop is thought to have received at the same time the
tonsure and the order of lector.

898

CANON XXXIV

But in future, since the priestly canon openly sets this forth, that the
crime of conspiracy or secret society is forbidden by external laws, but
much more ought it to be prohibited in the Church; we also hasten to
observe that if any clerics or monks are found either conspiring or entering
secret societies, or devising anything against bishops or clergymen, they
shall be altogether deprived of their rank.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIV

If clerics or monks enter into conspiracies or fraternities, or plots against
the bishop or their fellow clerics, they shall be cast out of their grade.

This is but a renewal of Canon xviij. of Chalcedon, which see with the
notes.

CANON XXXV

It shall be lawful for no Metropolitan on the death of a bishop of his
province to appropriate or sell the private property of the deceased, or
that of the widowed church: but these are to be in the custody of the
clergy of the diocese over which he presided until the election of another
bishop, unless in the said church there are no clergymen left. For then the
Metropolitan shall protect the property without diminution, handing over
everything to the bishop when he is appointed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXV

When the bishop is dead the clergy shall guard his goods. If, however, no
clergyman remains, the Metropolitan shall take charge of them until
another be ordained.

Compare Canon 22:of Chalcedon. This canon extends the prohibition to
Metropolitans as well.

ARISTENUS.

Neither the clergy nor metropolitan after the death of the bishop are
allowed to carry off his goods, but all should be guarded by the clergy
themselves, until another bishop is chosen. But if by chance no clergyman
is left in that church, the metropolitan is to keep all the possessions
undiminished and to return them to the future bishop.

900

CANON XXXVI

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the
God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at
Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal
privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in
ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After
Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch,
and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVI

Let the throne of Constantinople be next after that of Rome, and enjoy equal
privileges. After it Alexandria, then Antioch, and then Jerusalem.

BALSAMON,

The Fathers here speak of the Second and Third canons of the Second
Synod [i.e. I. Constantinople] and of canon xxviij. of the Fourth Synod
[i.e. Chalcedon]. And read what we have said on these canons.

ARISTENUS.

We have explained the third canon of the Synod of Constantinople and the
twenty-eighth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon as meaning, when
asserting that the bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges
after the Roman bishop, that he should be placed second from the Roman

901

in point of time. So here too this preposition "after" denotes time but not
honor. For after many years this throne of Constantinople obtained equal
privileges with the Roman Church; because it was honored by the
presence of the Emperor and of the Senate.

On this opinion of Aristenus's the reader is referred to the notes on Canon
iij. of I. Constantinople.

JUSTINIAN.

(AfoveZZa CXXXL, Cap. ij.)

We command that according to the definitions of the Four Councils the
most holy Pope of Old Rome shall be first of all the priests. But the most
blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, which is New Rome, shall have the
second place after the Holy Apostolic See of Old Rome.

This canon, in a mutilated form, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Diet. XXII. , c. vj.

902

CANON xxxvn

Since at different times there have been invasions of barbarians, and
therefore very many cities have been subjected to the infidels, so that the
bishop of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take
possession of his see, and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to
perform and manage for it the ordinations and all things which by custom
appertain to the bishop: we, preserving honor and veneration for the
priesthood, and in no wise wishing to employ the Gentile injury to the
ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that those who have been
ordained thus, and on account of the aforesaid cause have not been settled
in their sees, without any prejudice from this thing may be kept [in good
standing] and that they may canonically perform the ordination of the
different clerics and use the authority of their office according to the
defined limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may
be valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his office shall not be
circumscribed by a season of necessity when the exact observance of law
is circumscribed.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVII

A bishop who, on account of the incursions of the barbarians, is not set in
his throne, shall have his own chair of state, and shall ordain, and shall
enjoy most firmly all the rights of the priesthood.

By Canon XVIII. of Antioch the principle of this canon was enunciated,
that when a bishop did not take possession of his see because he could not
do so, he was not to be held responsible or to lose any of his episcopal
rights and powers, in that case the impossibility arose from the

903

insubordination of the people, in this from the diocese being in the hands
of the barbarians.

It has been commonly thought that the Bishops mpartibus infidelium had
their origin in the state of things calling for this canon.

904

CANON xxxvm

The canon which was made by the Fathers we also observe, which thus
decreed: If any city be renewed by imperial authority, or shall have been
renewed, let the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public
models.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVIH

If any city is or shall be renewed by the Emperor, the ecclesiastical order
shall follow the political and public example.

VAN ESPEN

The canon of the Fathers which the Synod wishes observed is XVII of
Chalcedon, the notes on which see.

Here it must be noted that by "civil and public models" is signified the
"pragmatic" or imperial letters, by which the emperors granted to newly
raised up or re-edified towns the privilege of other cities, or else annexed
them to some Province.

905

CANON XXXLX

Since our brother and fellow- worker, John, bishop of the island of
Cyprus, together with his people in the province of the Hellespont, both
on account of barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from
servitude of the heathen, and may be subject alone to the scepters of most
Christian rule, have emigrated from the said island, by the providence of
file philanthropic God, and the labor of our Christ- loving and pious
Empress; we determine that the privileges which were conceded by the
divine fathers who first at Ephesus assembled, are to be preserved without
any innovations, viz.: that new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of
Constantinople and whoever is constituted the pious and most religious
bishop thereof shall take precedence of all the bishops of the province of
the Hellespont, and be elected [?] by his own bishops according to ancient
custom. For the customs which obtain in each church our divine Fathers
also took pains should be maintained, the existing bishop of the city of
Cyzicus being subject to the metropolitan of the aforesaid Justinianopolis,
for the imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforesaid
beloved of God metropolitan John, by whom, as custom demands, even
the bishop of the very city of Cyzicus shall be ordained.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIX

The new Justinianopolis shall have the rights of Constantinople, and its
prelate shall rule over all the bishops the Hellespont to whom he has gone,
and he shall be ordained by his own bishop: as the fathers of Ephesus
decreed.

906
HEFELE

Hitherto the bishop of Cyzicus was metropolitan of the province of the
Hellespont. Now he too is to be subject to the bishop of
New-Justinianopolis. What, however, is meant by "the right of
Constantinople"? It was impossible that the Synod should place the
bishop of Justinianopolis in equal dignity with the patriarch of
Constantinople. But they probably meant to say: "The rights which the
bishop of Constantinople has hitherto exercised over the province of the
Hellespont, as chief metropolitan, fall now to the bishop of
New-Justinianopolis." Or perhaps we should read, instead of
Constantinople Kcovaxavxivecov 7to^eco<;, as the Amerbachian MS. has it,
and translate: "The same rights which Constantia (the metropolis of
Cyprus) possessed, New Justinianopolis shall henceforth have." The
latter is the more probable.

VAN ESPEN

To understand this canon it must be remembered that the Metropolis of
Cyprus, which was formerly called Constantia, when restored by the
Emperor Justinian was called by his name, New Justinianopolis.

907

CANON XL

Since to cleave to God by retiring from the noise and turmoil of life is
very beneficial, it behooves us not without examination to admit before the
proper time those who choose the monastic life, but to observe respecting
them the limit handed down by our fathers, in order that we may then
admit a profession of the life according to God as for ever firm, and the
result of knowledge and judgment after years of discretion have been
reached. He therefore who is about to submit to the yoke of monastic life
should not be less than ten years of age, the examination of the matter
depending on the decision of the bishop, whether he considers a longer
time more conducive for his entrance and establishment in the monastic
life. For although the great Basil in his holy canons decreed that she who
willingly offers to God and embraces virginity, if she has completed her
seventeenth year, is to be entered in the order of virgins: nevertheless,
having followed the example respecting widows and deaconesses, analogy
and proportion being considered, we have admitted at the said time those
who have chosen the monastic life. For it is written in the divine Apostle
that a widow is to be elected in the church at sixty years old: but the
sacred canons have decreed that a deaconess shall be ordained at forty,
since they saw that the Church by divine grace had gone forth more
powerful and robust and was advancing still further, and they saw the
firmness and stability of the faithful in observing the divine
commandments. Wherefore we also, since we most rightly comprehend the
matter, appoint the benediction of grace to him who is about to enter the
struggle according to God, even as impressing speedily a certain seal upon
him, hereupon introducing him to the not-long-to-be-hesitated-over and
declined, or rather inciting him even to the choice and determination of
good.

908

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL

A monk must be ten years old. Even if the Divine Basil thought the one
shorn should be over seventeen. But although the Apostle ordains that a
widow to be espoused to the Church must be sixty, yet the Fathers say a
Deaconess is to be ordained at forty, the Church in the meanwhile having
become stronger; so we place the seal on a monk at an earlier age.

ARISTENUS.

The eighteenth canon of Basil the Great orders that she who offers herself
to the Lord and renounces marriage, ought to be over sixteen or even
seventeen years of age: so that her promise may be firm and that if she
violates it she may suffer the due penalties. For, says he, children's voices
are not to be thought of any value in such matters. But the present canon
admits him who is not less than ten years and desires to be a monk, but
entrusts the determination of the exact time to the judgment of the
hegumenos, whether he thinks it more advantageous to increase the
age-requirement for the entering and being established in the married life.
But the canon lessens the time defined by Basil the Great, because the
Fathers thought that the Church by divine grace had grown stronger since
then, and was going on more and more, and that the faithful seemed firmer
and more stable for the observance of the divine commandments. And for
the same reason, viz, that the Church was growing better, the sacred
canons had lessened the age of deaconesses, and fixed it at forty years,
although the Apostle himself orders that no widow is to be chosen into the
Church under sixty years of age.

909

CANON XLI.

Those who in town or in villages wish to go away into cloisters, and take
heed for themselves apart, before they enter a monastery and practice the
anchorite's life, should for the space of three years in the fear of God
submit to the Superior of the house, and fulfill obedience in all things, as is
right, thus shewing forth their choice of this life and that they embrace it
willingly and with their whole hearts; they are then to be examined by the
superior (npoedpoq) of the place; and then to bear bravely outside the
cloister one year more, so that their purpose may be fully manifested. For
by this they will shew fully and perfectly that they are not catching at
vain glory, but that they are pursuing the life of solitude because of its
inherent beauty and honor. After the completion of such a period, if they
remain in the same intention in their choice of the life, they are to be
enclosed, and no longer is it lawful for them to go out of such a house
when they so desire, unless they be induced to do so for the common
advantage, or other pressing necessity urging on to death; and then only
with the blessing of the bishop of that place.

And those who, without the above-mentioned causes, venture forth of
their convents, are first of all to be shut up in the said convent even against
their wills, and then are to cure themselves with fasting and other
afflictions, knowing how it is written that "no one who has put his hand
to the plough and has looked back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLI

Whoever is about to enter a cloister, let him live for three years in a
monastery, and before he is shut up let him spend one year more, and so

910

let him be shut up. And he shall not then go forth unless death or the
common good demands.

VAN ESPEN

This canon, so far as it sets forth the necessity of probation before
admission to the Anchorite life, synods in after-years frequently
approved, taught as they were by experience how perilous a matter it is to
admit without sufficient probation to this solitary life and state of
separation from the common intercourse with his fellow men. Vide the
Synod of Vannes (about A.D. 465) canon vij., of Agde chap, lxxviij., of
Orleans the First can. xxij., of Frankfort can. xij., of Toledo the Seventh
can. v., and the Capitular of Charlemagne To monks, chap, ij

911

CANON XLII

Those who are called Eremites and are clothed in black robes, and with
long hair go about cities and associate with the worldly both men and
women and bring odium upon their profession — we decree that if they
will receive the habit of other monks and wear their hair cut short, they
may be shut up in a monastery and numbered among the brothers; but if
they do not choose to do this, they are to be expelled from the cities and
forced to live in the desert (epfijxotx;) from whence also they derive their
name.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLII

An eremite dressed in black vesture and not having his hair cut, unless he
has his hair cut shall be expelled the city and be shut up in his monastery.

It may not be irreverent to remark that this species of impostors always
has been common in the East, and many examples will be found of the
dervishes in the Arabian Nights and other Eastern tales. The "vagabond"
monks of the West also became a great nuisance as well as a scandal in the
Middle Ages. The reader will find interesting instances of Spanish
deceivers of the same sort in "Gil Bias" and other Spanish romances.

912

CANON XLIII.

It is lawful for every Christian to choose the life of religious discipline,
and setting aside the troublous surgings of the affairs of this life to enter a
monastery, and to be shaven in the fashion of a monk, without regard to
what faults he may have previously committed. For God our Savior says:
"Whose cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out."

As therefore the monastic method of life engraves upon us as on a tablet
the life of penitence, we receive whoever approaches it sincerely; nor is
any custom to be allowed to hinder him from fulfilling his intention.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIII

Whoever flees from the surging billows of life and desires to enter a
monastery, shall be allowed to do so.

ZONARAS.

The greatness or the number of a man's sins ought not to make him lose
hope of propitiating the divinity by his penitence, if he turns his eyes to
the divine mercy. This is what the canon asserts, and affirms that
everyone, no matter how wicked and nefarious his life may have been,
may embrace monastic discipline, which inscribes, as on a tablet, to us a
life of penitence. For as a tablet describes to us what is inscribed upon it,
so the monastic profession writes and inscribes upon us penitence, so that
it remains for ever.

913

CANON XLIV

A Monk convicted of fornication, or who takes a wife for the communion
of matrimony and for society, is to be subjected to the penalties of
fornicators, according to the canons.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIV

A monk joined in marriage or committing fornication shall pay the penalty
of a fornicator.

The punishment here seems too light, so that Balsamon thinks that this
canon only refers to such monks as freely confess their sin and desist from
it, remaining in their monasteries; and that the sterner penalties assigned to
unchaste religious by other synods (notably Chalcedon, can. xvj., and
Ancyra, can. xix.) are for such as do not confess their faults but are after
some time convicted of them.

ARISTENUS.

The monk will receive the same punishment whether he be a fornicator or
has joined himself with a woman for the communion of marriage.

VAN ESPEN

It is very likely from this canon that the Monastic vow at the time of this
Synod was not yet an impedimentum dirimens of matrimony, for nothing

914

is said about the dissolution of the marriage contracted by a monk although
he had gravely sinned in violating his faith pledged to God.

915

CANON XLV

Whereas we understand that in some monasteries of women those who
are about to be clothed with the sacred habit are first adorned in silks and
garments of all kinds, and also with gold and jewels, by those who bring
them thither, and that they thus approach the altar and are there stripped
of such a display of wealth, and that immediately thereafter the blessing of
their habit takes place, and they are clothed with the black robe; we decree
that henceforth this shall not be done. For it is not lawful for her who has
already of her own free will put away every delight of life, and has
embraced that method of life which is according to God, and has confirmed
it with strong and stable reasons, and so has come to the monastery, to
recall to memory the things which they had already forgotten, things of
this world which perisheth and passeth away. For thus they raise in
themselves doubts, and are disturbed in their souls, like the tossing waves,
turning hither and thither. Moreover, they should not give bodily evidence
of heaviness of heart by weeping, but if a few tears drop from their eyes,
as is like enough to be the case, they may be supposed by those who see
them to have flowed \xr\ p&Mov on account of their affection
(Sioc9eoeco<; affectionem) for the ascetic struggle rather than (f^) because
they are quitting the world and worldly things.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLV

Parents shall not deck out in silks a daughter who has chosen the monastic
life, and thus clothe her, for this is a recalling to her mind the world she is
leaving.

This canon is at the present day constantly broken at the profession of
Carmelites.

916

917

CANON XL VI

Those women who choose the ascetic life and are settled in monasteries
may by no means go forth of them. If, however, any inexorable necessity
compels them, let them do so with the blessing and permission of her who
is mother superior; and even then they must not go forth alone, but with
some old women who are eminent in the monastery, and at the command
of the lady superior. But it is not at all permitted that they should stop
outside.

And men also who follow the monastic life let them on urgent necessity go
forth with the blessing of him to whom the rule is entrusted.

Wherefore, those who transgress that which is now decreed by us,
whether they be men or women, are to be subjected to suitable
punishments.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVI

A nun shall not go out of her convent without the consent of her superior,
nor shall she go alone but with an older one of the order. It is in no case
permitted to her to spend the night outside. The same is the case with a
monk; he cannot go out of the monastery without the consent of the
superior.

918

CANON XLVII

No woman may sleep in a monastery of men, nor any man in a monastery
of women. For it behooves the faithful to be without offense and to give
no scandal, and to order their lives decorously and honestly and
acceptably to God. But if any one shall have done this, whether he be
cleric or layman, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVII

It is not allowed that a woman should sleep in a convent of men, nor a man
in a monastery of women.

The ground covered by this canon is also found in Justinian's Code, Book
xliv., Of Bishops and Clergy. Vide also Novella cxxxiii., chap, v

VAN ESPEN

From the whole context of Justinian's law it is manifest that Justinian here
is condemning "double monasteries," in which both men and women
dwelt. And he wishes such to be separated, the men from the women, and
e contra the women from the men, and that each should dwell in separate
monasteries.

The reader may be reminded of some curious double religious houses in
England for men and women, of which sometimes a woman was the
superior of both.

919

CANON XLVIII.

The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be
separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his
ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery
situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy
the bishop's provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced
to the dignity of a deaconess.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVIH

She who is separated from one about to be consecrated bishop, shall enter
a monastery after his ordination, situated at a distance from the See city,
and she shall be provided for by the bishop.

920

CANON XLIX

Renewing also the holy canon, we decree that the monasteries which have
been once consecrated by the Episcopal will, are always to remain
monasteries, and the things which belong to them are to be preserved to
the monastery, and they cannot any more be secular abodes nor be given
by any one to seculars. But if anything of this kind has been done already,
we declare it to be null; and those who hereafter attempt to do so are to be
subjected to canonical penalties.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIX

Monasteries built with the consent of the bishop shall not afterwards be
turned into secular houses, nor shall they pass into the hands of seculars.

VAN ESPEN

This canon renews canon 24:of Chalcedon. And here it may be observed
that the canons even of Ecumenical Synods fall into desuetude little by
little, unless the care of bishops and pastors keeps them alive, and from
the example of this synod it may be seen how often they need calling back
again into observance.

Nor can there be any doubt that frequently it would be more advantageous
to renew the canons already set forth by the Fathers, rather than to frame
new ones.

921

CANON L

No one at all, whether cleric or layman, is from this time forward to play
at dice. And if any one hereafter shall be found doing so, if he be a cleric he
is to be deposed, if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON L

A layman should not plug at dice.

This renews canons 42:and xliij. of the Apostolic canons.

922

CANON LI

This holy and ecumenical synod altogether forbids those who are called
"players," and their "spectacles," as well as the exhibition of hunts, and
the theatrical dances. If any one despises the present canon, and gives
himself to any of the things which are forbidden, if he be a cleric he shall
be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LI

Whose shall play as an actor or shall attend theatrical representations or
hunts shall be cut off. Should he be a cleric he shall be deposed.

BALSAMON

Some one will enquire why canon xxiiij. decrees that those in holy orders
and monks, who are constantly attending horse-races, and scenic plays, are
to cease or be deposed: but the present canon says without discrimination,
that those who give themselves over to such things if clergymen are to be
deposed, and if laymen to be cut off. The solution is this. It is one thing
and more easily to be endured, that a man should be present at a
horse-race, or be convicted of going to see a play; and another thing, and
one that cannot be pardoned, that he should give himself over to such
things, and to exercise this continually as his business. Wherefore those
who have once sinned deliberately, are admonished to cease. If they are
not willing to obey, they are to be deposed. But those who are constantly
engaged in this wickedness, if they are clerics, they must be deposed from
their clerical place, if laymen they must be cut off.

923

CANON LII

On all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord's day
and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is
to be said.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LH

Throughout the whole of Lent except upon the Lord's day, the Sabbath, and
upon the day of the Annunciation, the presanctified gifts shall be offered.

BALSAMON

We do not call the service of the Presanctified the unbloody sacrifice, but
the offering of the previously offered, and of the perfected sacrifice, and of
the completed priestly act.

VAN ESPEN

The Greeks therefore confess that the bread once offered and consecrated,
is not to be consecrated anew on another day; but a new offering is made
of what was before consecrated and presanctified: just as in the Latin
Church the consecrated or presanctified bread of Maundy Thursday is
offered on Good Friday.

The Patriarch Michael of Constantinople is quoted by Leo Allatius as
saying that "none of the mystic consecratory prayers are said over the

924

presanctified gifts, but the priest only recites the prayer that he may be a
worthy communicant."

Some among the later Greeks have been of opinion that the unconsecrated
wine was consecrated by the commixture with the consecrated bread, and
(without any words of consecration) was transmuted into the sacred
blood, and with this seems to agree the already quoted Michael, Patriarch
of Constantinople, who is cited by Leo Allatius in his treatise on the rite
of the presanctified. "The presanctified is put into the mystic chalice, and
so the wine which was then in it, is changed into the holy blood of the
Lord." And with this agrees Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in his
answer to Gabriel of Pentapolis, when he writes: "In the mass of the
Presanctified no consecration of what is in the chalice is made by the
invocation of the Holy Spirit and of his sign, but by the participation and
union of the life-giving bread, which is truly the body of Christ."

From this opinion, which was held by some of the Greeks, it gradually
became the practice at Constantinople not to dip the bread in the Sacred
Blood, as Michael the patriarch of this very church testifies. But in the
ordinary Euchologion of the Greeks it is expressly set forth that the
presanctified bread before it is reserved, should be dipped in the sacred
blood, and for this a rite is provided.

Leo Allatius' s Dissertatio de Missa Proesanctificatorum should be read; an
outline of the service as found in the Euchologion, and as reprinted by
Renaudotius is as follows.

First of all vespers is said. After some lessons and prayers, including the
"Great Ectenia" and that for the Catechumens, these are dismissed.

After the Catechumens have departed there follows the Ectenia of the
Faithful. After which, "Now the heavenly Powers invisibly minister with
us; for, behold, the King of Glory is born in. Behold the mystic sacrifice
having been perfected is born aloft by angels.

"Let us draw near with faith and love, that we may become partakers of
life eternal. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

"Deacon. Let us accomplish our evening prayer to the Lord.

925

"For the precious and presanctified gifts that are offered, let us pray to the
Lord. "That our man-loving God, etc." as in the ordinary liturgy past the
Lord's prayer, and down to the Sancta Sanctis, which reads as follows:

Priest. Holy things presanctified for holy persons.

Choir. One holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father —
Amen.

Then the Communion Hymn and the Communion, and the rest as in the
ordinary liturgy, except "this whole evening," is said for "this whole day,"
and another prayer is provided in the room of that beginning "Lord, who
blessest them, etc."

It is curious to note that on Good Friday, the only day on which the Mass
of the Presanctified is celebrated in the West, its use has died out in the
East, and now it is used "on the Wednesdays and Fridays of the first six
weeks of the Great Quadragesima, on the Thursday of the fifth week, and
on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of Holy Passion Week. It may
also be said, excepting on Saturdays and Sundays, and on the Festival of
the Annunciation, on other days during the Fast, to wit, on those of
festivals and their Vigils, and on the Commemoration of the Dedication of
the Church."

Symeon, who was bishop of Thessalonica, and flourished in the early part
of the XVth Century, complains of the general neglect of the Mass of the
Presanctified on Good Friday in his time, and says that his church was the
only one in the Exarchate that then retained it. He ascribes the disuse to
the example of the Church of Jerusalem. See the matter treated at length in
his Quoestiones, lv-lix. Migne's Pat. Groec.

Cf. J. M. Neale Essays on Liturgiology, p. 109.

926

CANON LIII

Whereas the spiritual relationship is greater than fleshly affinity; and
since it has come to our knowledge that in some places certain persons
who become sponsors to children in holy salvation-bearing baptism,
afterwards contract matrimony with their mothers (being widows), we
decree that for the future nothing of this sort is to be done. But if any,
after the present canon, shall be observed to do this, they must, in the first
place, desist from this unlawful marriage, and then be subjected to the
penalties of fornicators.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIII

Godfathers cannot be permitted to be married with the mother of their
godchildren. If any one is so joined, let him do penance after separation.

JOHNSON.

(Clergyman 's Vade Mecum.)

The imperial law forbade the adopter parent to marry his or her adopted
son or daughter; for the godchild was thought a sort of an adopted child.
See Justin., Institut., Lib. I., Tit. x.

Van Espen however refers, and to my mind with greater truth, to
Justinian' s law (xxvj of the God. de Nuptiis) which forbids the marriage of
a man with his nurse or with whoever received him from the font,
"because," says the law, "nothing can so incite to parental affection, and

927

therefore induce a just prohibition of marriage, than a bond of this sort by
which, through God's meditation, their souls are bound together."

928

CANON LIV

The divine scriptures plainly teach us as follows, "Thou shalt not
approach to any that is near of kin to thee to uncover their nakedness."
Basil, the bearer-of-God, has enumerated in his canons some marriages
which are prohibited and has passed over the greater part in silence, and in
both these ways has done us good service. For by avoiding a number of
disgraceful names (lest by such words he should pollute his discourse) he
included impurities under general terms, by which course he shewed to us
in a general way the marriages which are forbidden. But since by such
silence, and because of the difficulty of understanding what marriages are
prohibited, the matter has become confused; it seemed good to us to set it
forth a little more clearly, decreeing that from this time forth he who shall
marry with the daughter of his father; or a father or son with a mother and
daughter; or a father and son with two girls who are sisters; or a mother
and daughter with two brothers; or two brothers with two sisters, fall
under the canon of seven years, provided they openly separate from this
unlawful union.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIV

Thou shalt not permit the marriage of a son of a brother to the daughter of
a brother; nor with a daughter and her mother shall there be the marriage
of a son and his father; neither a mother and a daughter with two
brothers; nor brothers with two sisters. But should anything of this sort
have been done, together with separation, penance shall be done for seven
years.

929

CANON LV

Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of
Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance
which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the
Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says:
"If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on
one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be
cut off."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LV

The Romans fast the Sabbaths of Lent. Therefore this Synod admonishes
that upon these days the Apostolical canon is of force.

The canon quoted is LXVI. of the Apostolic Canons.

VAN ESPEN

The Fathers of this Synod thought that this canon of the Apostles was
edited by the Apostles themselves, and therefore they seem to have
reprobated the custom of the Roman Church of fasting on the Sabbath
more bitterly than was right. Whence it happens this is one of those
canons which the Roman Church never received.

ZONARAS.

The synod took in hand to correct this failing (G(paX|j,a) of the Latins; but
until this time they have arrogantly remained in their pertinacity, and so

930

remain today. Nor do they heed the ancient canons which forbid fasting on
the Sabbath except that one, to wit the great Sabbath, nor are they affected
by the authority of this canon. Moreover the clerics have no regard for the
threatened deposition, nor the laymen for their being cut off.

931

CANON LVI

We have likewise learned that in the regions of Armenia and in other
places certain people eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Lord's days
of the holy lent. It seems good therefore that the whole Church of God
which is in all the world should follow one rule and keep the fast
perfectly, and as they abstain from everything which is killed, so also
should they from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and produce of those
animals from which we abstain. But if any shall not observe this law, if
they be clerics, let them be deposed; but if laymen, let them be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVI

Armenians eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths in Lent. It is determined
that the whole world should abstain from these. If not let the offender be
cast out.

VAN ESPEN

This canon shows that the ancient Greeks, although they did not fast on
the Sabbaths and Lord's days of Lent, nevertheless they abstained on
them from flesh food; and it was believed by them that abstinence from
flesh food involved also necessarily abstinence from all those things which
have their origin from flesh. This also formerly was observed by the Latins
in Lent, and in certain regions is known still to be the usage.

932

CANON LVII.

It is not right to offer honey and milk on the altar.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVII

No one should offer honey or milk at the altar.

See canon iij . of the Apostles, canon xxviij . of the African code, also canon
xxviij. of this synod. The Greeks apparently do not recognize the
exception specified in the canon of the African Code.

933

CANON LVm

None of those who are in the order of laymen may distribute the Divine
Mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be present. But
whoso shall dare to do such a thing, as acting contrary to what has been
determined shall be cut off for a week and thenceforth let him learn not to
think of himself more highly than he ought to think.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVIII

A layman shall not communicate himself. Should he do so, let him be cut off
for a week.

VAN ESPEN

It is well known that in the first centuries it was customary that the Holy
Eucharist should be taken back by the faithful to their houses; and that at
home they received it at their own hands. It is evident that this was what
was done by the Anchorites and monks who lived in the deserts, as may
be seen proved by Cardinal Bona. (De Rebus Liturg., Lib. II., cap. xvij.).
From this domestic communion it is easily seen how the abuse arose
which is condemned in this canon.

934

CANON LIX

Baptism is by no means to be administered in an oratory which is within a
house; but they who are about to be held worthy of the spotless
illumination are to go to a Catholic Church and there to enjoy this gift. But
if any one shall be convicted of not observing what we have determined, if
he be a cleric let him be deposed, if a layman let him be cut off.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIX

In oratories built in houses they shall not celebrate baptism. Whoever shall
not observe this, if a cleric he shall be deposed, if a layman he shall be cut
off.

935

CANON LX

Since the Apostle exclaims that he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit, it
is clear that he who is intimate with his [i.e. the Lord's] enemy becomes
one by his affinity with him. Therefore, those who pretend they are
possessed by a devil and by their depravity of manners feign to manifest
their form and appearance; it seems good by all means that they should be
punished and that they should be subjected to afflictions and hardships of
the same kind as those to which they who are truly demoniacally
possessed are justly subjected with the intent of delivering them from the
[work or rather] energy of the devil.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LX

Whoever shall pretend to be possessed by a devil, shall endure the penance
of demoniacs.

Zonaras says in his scholion that even in his day people made the same
claim to diabolical possession.

936

CANON LXI.

Those who give themselves up to soothsayers or to those who are called
hecatontarchs or to any such, in order that they may learn from them what
things they wish to have revealed to them, let all such, according to the
decrees lately made by the Fathers concerning them, be subjected to the
canon of six years. And to this [penalty] they also should be subjected
who carry about she-bears or animals of the kind for the diversion and
injury of the simple; as well as those who tell fortunes and fates, and
genealogy, and a multitude of words of this kind from the nonsense of
deceit and imposture. Also those who are called expellers of clouds,
enchanters, amulet-givers, and soothsayers.

And those who persist in these things, and do not turn away and flee from
pernicious and Greek pursuits of this kind, we declare are to be thrust out
of the Church, as also the sacred canons say. "For what fellowship hath
light with darkness?" as saith the Apostle, "or what agreement is there
between the temple of God and idols? or what part hath he that believeth
with an infidel? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?"

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXI

Whoever shall deliver himself over to a hecatontarch or to devils, so as to
learn some secret, he shall be put under penance for six years. So too those
who take around a bear, who join themselves with those who seek
incantations and drive away the clouds, and have faith in fortune and fate,
shall be cast out of the assembly of the Church.

HEFELE.

937

According to Balsamon (in Beveridge, Synod., Tom. I., p. 228) old people
who had the reputation of special knowledge [were called
"hecatontarchs"]. They sold the hair [of these she bears and other animals]
as medicine or for an amulet. Cf. Balsamon and Zonaras ut supra.

St. Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Statutes explains, in answer to
certain who defended them on this ground, that if these incantations are
made in the name of Christ they are so much the worse. The Saint says,
"Moreover I think that she is to be hated all the more who abuses the
name of God for this purpose, because while professing to be a Christian,
she shows by her actions that she is a heathen."

938

CANON LXII

The so-called Calends, and what are called Bota and Brumalia, and the full
assembly which takes place on the first of March, we wish to be abolished
from the life of the faithful. And also the public dances of women, which
may do much harm and mischief. Moreover we drive away from the life of
Christians the dances given in the names of those falsely called gods by the
Greeks whether of men or women, and which are performed after an
ancient and un-Christian fashion; decreeing that no man from this time
forth shall be dressed as a woman, nor any woman in the garb suitable to
men. Nor shall he assume comic, satiric, or tragic masks; nor may men
invoke the name of the execrable Bacchus when they squeeze out the wine
in the presses; nor when pouring out wine into jars [to cause a laugh],
practicing in ignorance and vanity the things which proceed from the deceit
of insanity. Therefore those who in the future attempt any of these things
which are written, having obtained a knowledge of them, if they be clerics
we order them to be deposed, anti if laymen to be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXII

Let these be taken away from the lives of the faithful, viz.: the Bota, and the
Calends, and the Brumalia, and salutations in honor of the gods, and
comic, satiric and tragic masks, and the invocation of Bacchus at the wine
press, and the laughing at the wine jars. Whoever shall persist in these
after this canon shall be liable to give an account.

On the Calends see Du Cange (Glossarium in loc). The Bota were feasts
in honor of Pan, the Brumalia feasts in honor of Bacchus. Many
particulars with regard to these superstitions will be found in Balsamon's

939

scholion, to which the curious reader is referred. Van Espen also has some
valuable notes on the Kalends of January.

940

CANON LXIH

We forbid to be publicly read in Church, histories of the martyrs which
have been falsely put together by the enemies of the truth, in order to
dishonor the martyrs of Christ and induce unbelief among those who hear
them, but we order that such books be given to the flames. But those who
accept them or apply their mind to them as true we anathematize.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIII

Martyrologies made up by the ethnics (EXXr| vicov) shall not be published
in church.

What is condemned is false histories of true martyrs, not (as Johnson
erroneously supposes) "false legends of pretended martyrs." There have
been martyrs, both royal and plebeian, in much later times whose lives
have been made ridiculous and whose memory has been rendered hateful to
the ignorant people by so-called "histories" which might well have
received the treatment ordered by the canon.

941

CANON LXIV

It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for
himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by
the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to
teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has
made "different members," according to the word of the Apostle: and
Gregory the Theologian, wisely interpreting this passage, commends the
order in vogue with them saying: "This order brethren we revere, this we
guard. Let this one be the ear; that one the tongue, the hand or any other
member. Let this one teach, but let that one learn." And a little further on:
"Learning in docility and abounding in cheerfulness, and ministering with
alacrity, we shall not all be the tongue which is the more active member,
not all of us Apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret." And
again: "Why dost thou make thyself a shepherd when thou art a sheep?
Why become the head when thou art a foot? Why dost thou try to be a
commander when thou art enrolled in the number of the soldiers?" And
elsewhere: "Wisdom orders, Be not swift in words; nor compare thyself
with the rich, being poor; nor seek to be wiser than the wise." But if any
one be found weakening the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty
days.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIV

A layman shall not teach, for all are not prophets, nor all apostles.

Zonaras points out that this canon refers only to public instruction and
not to private. Van Espen further notes that in the West this restriction is
limited to the solemn and public preaching and announcing of the Word of
God, which is restricted to bishops, and only by special and express

942

license given to the other clergy, and refers to his own treatment of the
subject Injure Eccles, Tom L, part 1, tit. xvj., cap. viij.

943

CANON LXV

The fires which are lighted on the new moons by some before their shops
and houses, upon which (according to a certain ancient custom) they are
wont foolishly and crazily to leap, we order henceforth to cease.
Therefore, whosoever shall do such a thing, if he be a cleric, let him be
deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be cut off. For it is written in the
Fourth Book of the Kings "And Manasses built an altar to the whole host
of heaven, in the two courts of the Lord, and made his sons to pass
through the fire, he used lots and augurs and divinations by birds and made
ventriloquists [or pythons] and multiplied diviners, that he might do evil
before the Lord and provoke him to anger."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXV

The fires which were made upon the new moons at the workshops are
condemned and those who leaped upon them.

Lupin remarks that the fires kindled on certain Saints' days are almost
certainly remains of this heathen practice. These fires are often
accompanied with leaping, drinking, and the wrestling of young men.

944

CANON LXVI

From the holy day of the Resurrection of Christ our God until the next
Lord's day, for a whole week, in the holy churches the faithful ought to be
free from labor, rejoicing in Christ with psalms and hymns and spiritual
songs; and celebrating the feast, and applying their minds to the reading of
the holy Scriptures, and delighting in the Holy Mysteries; for thus shall
we be exalted with Christ and together with him be raised up. Therefore,
on the aforesaid days there must not be any horse races or any public
spectacle.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVI

The faithful shall every one of them go to church during the whole week
after Easter.

VAN ESPEN

It is certain that the whole of Easter week was kept as a feast by the
whole Church both East and West; and this Synod did not introduce this
custom by its canon, but adopted this canon to ensure its continuance.

Here we have clearly set forth the Christian manner of passing a feast-day,
viz., that the faithful on those days did give themselves up to "Psalms and
Hymns and Spiritual Songs," from which the divine office which we call
today canonical [i.e., chiefly Mattins and Vespers] are made up; and hence
we understand that all the faithful ought to attend the choir-offices, which
was indeed observed for many centuries, as I have shewn in my

945

Dissertation on the Canonical Hours, cap. III., 1, and therefore it was
called "public" [or common] prayer.

946

CANON LXVII

The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things
strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a
dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and
so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any
way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a
layman, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVII

A cleric eating blood shall be deposed, but a layman shall be cut off.

VAN ESPEN

The apostolic precept of abstaining "from blood and from things
strangled" for some ages, not only among the Greeks but also among the
Latins, was observed in many churches, but little by little and step by
step it died out in the whole Church, at least in the Latin Church,
altogether.

In this the Latin Church followed the opinion of St. Augustine, Contra
Faustum Manichoeum, Lib. XXXII. , cap. xiij., where he teaches at great
length that the precept was given to Christians only while the Gentile
Church was not yet settled. This passage of Augustine also proves that at
that time Africa did not observe this precept of the Apostles.

947

CANON LXVIII.

It is unlawful for anyone to corrupt or cut up a book of the Old or New
Testament or of our holy and approved preachers and teachers, or to give
them up to the traders in books or to those who are called perfumers, or to
hand it over for destruction to any other like persons: unless to be sure it
has been rendered useless either by bookworms, or by water, or in some
other way. He who henceforth shall be observed to do such a thing shall be
cut off for one year. Likewise also he who buys such books (unless he
keeps them for his own use, or gives them to another for his benefit to be
preserved) and has attempted to corrupt them, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVIH

Thou shalt not destroy nor hand over copies of the Divine Scriptures to be
destroyed unless they are absolutely useless.

VAN ESPEN

(Foot-note.)

I think that this canon was directed against certain Nestorian and
Eutychian heretics, who, that they might find some patronage of their
errors from the Holy Scriptures, dared in the sixth century most
infamously to corrupt certain passages of the New Testament.

948

CANON LXIX

It is not permitted to a layman to enter the sanctuary (Holy Altar, Gk.),
though, in accordance with a certain ancient tradition, the imperial power
and authority is by no means prohibited from this when he wishes to offer
his gifts to the Creator.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIX

No layman except the Emperor shall go up to the altar.

VAN ESPEN

That in the Latin Church as well as in the Greek for many centuries it was
the constant custom, ratified by various councils, that lay-men are to be
excluded from the sanctuary and from the place marked off for the priests
who are celebrating the divine mysteries, is so notorious as to need no
proof, and the present canon shows that among the Greeks the laity were
not admitted to the sacrarium even to make offerings.

The Synod makes but one exception, to wit, the Emperor, who can enter
the rails of the holy altar by its permission "when he wishes to offer his
gifts to the Creator, according to ancient custom."

Not without foundation does the Synod claim "ancient custom" for this;
for long before, it is evident, it was the case from the words of the
Emperor Theodosius the Younger. See also Theodoret (H. E., lib. v., cap.
xvij.).

949

In the Latin Church, not only to emperors, kings, and great princes but
also to patrons of churches, to toparchs of places, and even to magistrates,
seats have been wont to be assigned honoris causa within the sanctuary or
choir, and it has been contended that these are properly due to such
persons.

It is evident from Balsamon's note that the later Greeks at least looked
upon the Emperor as being (like the kings of England and France) a
persona mixta, sharing in some degree the sacerdotal character, as being
anointed not merely with oil, but with the sacred chrism. Vide in this
connection J. Wickham Legg, The Sacring of the English Kings, in "The
Archaeological Journal," March, 1894.

950

CANON LXX

Women are not permitted to speak at the time of the Divine Liturgy; but,
according to the word of Paul the Apostle, "let them be silent. For it is not
permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the law also saith.
But if they wish to learn anything let them ask their own husbands at
home."

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXX

Women are not permitted to speak in church.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto
them to speak," is the passage referred to. 1 Corinthians 14:34.

951

CANON LXXI

Those who are taught the civil laws must not adopt the customs of the
Gentiles, nor be induced to go to the theater, nor to keep what are called
Cylestras, nor to wear clothing contrary to the general custom; and this
holds good when they begin their training, when they reach its end, and, in
short, all the time of its duration. If any one from this time shall dare to do
contrary to this canon he is to be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXI

Whoever devotes himself to the study of law, uses the manner of the
Gentiles, going to the theater, and rolling in the dust, or dressing differently
to custom, shall be cut off.

Liddell and Scott identify Ka^iaxpa with KocXiv8r|9pa which they define
as "a place for horses to roll after exercise," and note that it is a synonym
of 6cXic;Sr|9poc. But it is interesting to note that ak'wrysxc, is "a rolling in
the dust, an exercise in which wrestlers rolled on the ground."

Hefele says that Balsamon and Zonaras have not been able rightly to
explain what we are to understand by the forbidden "Cylestras," but I
think Johnson is not far out of the way when he translates "nor to meddle
with athletic exercises."

952

CANON LXXII

An orthodox man is not permitted to marry an heretical woman, nor an
orthodox woman to be joined to an heretical man. But if anything of this
kind appear to have been done by any [we require them] to consider the
marriage null, and that the marriage be dissolved. For it is not fitting to
mingle together what should not be mingled, nor is it right that the sheep
be joined with the wolf, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ.
But if any one shall transgress the things which we have decreed let him be
cut off. But if any who up to this time are unbelievers and are not yet
numbered in the flock of the orthodox have contracted lawful marriage
between themselves, and if then, one choosing the right and coming to the
light of truth and the other remaining still detained by tile bond of error
and not willing to behold with steady eye the divine rays, the unbelieving
woman is pleased to cohabit with the believing man, or the unbelieving
man with the believing woman, let them not be separated, according to the
divine Apostle, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife by her husband."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXII

A marriage contracted with heretics is void. But if they have made the
contract before [conversion] let them remain [united] if they so desire.

Perhaps none of the canons of this synod present greater and more
insolvable difficulties than the present. It has been for long centuries the
tradition of the Church that the marriage of a baptized Christian with an
unbaptized person is null, but this canon seems to say that the same is the
case if the one party be a heretic even though baptized. If this is what the
canon means it elevates heresy into an impedimentum dirimens. Such is

953

not and never has been the law of the West, and such is not today the
practice of the Eastern church, which allows the marriage of its people
with Lutherans and with Roman Catholics and never questions the validity
of their marriages. Van Espen thinks "the Greek commentators seem" to
think that the heretics referred to are unbaptized; I do not know exactly
why he thinks so.

954

CANON LXXIII.

Since the life-giving cross has shewn to us Salvation, we should be careful
that we render due honor to that by which we were saved from the ancient
fall. Wherefore, in mind, in word, in feeling giving veneration
(7tpoGK\)vr|Gi<;) to it, we command that the figure of the cross, which
some have placed on the floor, be entirely removed therefrom, lest the
trophy of the victory won for us be desecrated by the trampling under
foot of those who walk over it. Therefore those who from this present
represent on the pavement the sign of the cross, we decree are to be cut
off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIH

If there is a cross upon a pavement it must be removed.

This canon defines that to the image of the cross is to be "given veneration
(7tpoaK\)vr|Gi<;) of the intellect, of the words, and of the sense," i.e., the
cross is to be venerated with the interior cultus of the soul, is to be
venerated with the exterior culture of praise, and also with sensible acts,
such as kissings, bowings, etc.

955

CANON LXXIV

It is not permitted to hold what are called agape, that is love-feasts, in the
Lord's houses or churches, nor to eat within the house, nor to spread
couches. If any dare to do so let him cease therefrom or be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIV

Agape are not to be held in the churches, nor shall beds be put up these, let
them be cut off. Whoso refuse to give up.

This is a renewal of canon xxviij., of Laodicea, on which canon see the
notes.

956

CANON LXXV

We, will that those whose office it is to sing in the churches do not use
undisciplined vociferations, nor force nature to shouting, nor adopt any of
those modes which are incongruous and unsuitable for the church: but that
they offer the psalmody to God, who is the observer of secrets, with great
attention and compunction. For the Sacred Oracle taught that the Sons of
Israel were to be pious.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXV

Inordinate vociferation of the psalms is not allowed, nor he that adopts
things unsuited to the churches.

This question of the character of church music was one early discussed
among Christians, and (long before the time of this synod), St. Augustine,
in debating as to whether the chanting or the reading of the psalter was the
more edifying, concludes, "when the psalms are chanted with a voice and
most suitable modulation (liquida voce et convenientissima modulatione), I
recognize that there is great utility in the practice," and further on he adds
that singing is to be the rather approved, because "by the delight given to
the ears the infirm soul is worked up to pious aspirations." (Confess. Lib.
x., cap. xxxiij.).

957

CANON LXXVI

It is not right that those who are responsible for reverence to churches
should place within the sacred bounds an eating place, nor offer food there,
nor make other sales. For God our Savior teaching us when he was
tabernacling in the flesh commanded not to make his Father' s house a
house of merchandise. He also poured out the small coins of the
money-changers, and drave out all those who made common the temple. If,
therefore, anyone shall be taken in the aforesaid fault let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXVI

A public house should not be established within the sacred precincts; and it
is wrong to sell food there; and whosoever shall do so shall be cut off.

Both Balsamon and Zonaras remark that this canon refers to the vestibule
of the church and to the rest of the sacred inclosure, and not to the interior
of the church proper, for there no one would ever think of having a shop.

958

CANON LXXVII

It is not right that those who are dedicated to religion, whether clerics or
uscetics, should wash in the bath with women, nor should any Christian
man or layman do so. For this is severely condemned by the heathens. But
if any one is caught in this thing, if he is a cleric let him be deposed; if a
layman, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXVII

A Christian man shall not bathe with women. Should a cleric do so he is to
be deposed, and a layman cut off.

This is a renewal of the XXXth canon of Laodicea. It will be noted, as
Zonaras remarks, that the monks must be counted among the laymen who
are to be cut off, since they have no clerical character or tonsure.

959

CANON LXXVIH

It behooves those who are illuminated to learn the Creed by heart and to
recite it to the bishop or presbyters on the Fifth Feria of the Week.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXVIH

He that is illuminated is to recite (ocTtayyeXXexco) the faith on the fifth feria
of the week.

This is a renewal of canon 46:of Laodicea.

960

CANON LXXK

As we confess the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed,
since it came to pass without seed, and as we preach this to the entire
flock, so we subject to correction those who through ignorance do
anything which is inconsistent therewith. Wherefore since some on the
day after the holy Nativity of Christ our God are seen cooking
oeuASocXiv, and distributing it to each other, on pretext of doing honor to
the puerperia of the spotless Virgin Maternity, we decree that henceforth
nothing of the kind be done by the faithful. For this is not honoring the
Virgin (who above thought and speech bare in the flesh the
incomprehensible Word) when we define and describe, from ordinary
things and from such as occur with ourselves, her ineffable parturition. If
therefore anyone henceforth be discovered doing any such thing, if he be a
cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIX

Whoever after the feast of the Mother of God shall prepare (aeuASiXiv)
(semilam) or anything else on account of what is called puerperia, let him
be cut off.

As the Catholic Church has always taught the Virgin-birth as well as the
Virgin-conception of our Blessed Lord, and has affirmed that Mary was
ever-virgin, even after she had brought forth the incarnate Son, so it
follows necessarily that there could be no childbed nor puerperal flux. It
need hardly be remarked here that besides other texts that of the prophet
is considered as teaching thus much, "Behold the Virgin (ha alma) shall
conceive and bear a son," she that "bare" as well as she that "conceived"
being a virgin. Some commentators have taken £7tiX6%eioc for the

961

afterbirth, but Christian Lupus, as Van Espen notes, has pointed out that
the early fathers seem to have recognized that the Virgin did have the
"afterbirth," and this St. Jerome expressly teaches in his book, Contra
Helvidium.

The Greeks, however, understood it as I have translated, and the witness
of Zonaras will be sufficient. The words ^o%oc;, ^o%ouo<; and the like all
signify "lying in," "a place of lying in," and Liddell and Scott say that the
latter word is used of "bearing down like heavy ears of corn," which would
well express the labor pains.

ZONARAS.

This canon teaches that the parturition of the holy Virgin was without any
childbed. For childbed (puerperium) is the emission of the fetus
accompanied by pain and a flux of blood: but none of us eve believed that
the Mother of God was subjected to sufferings of this sort, for these are
the consequents of natural conception, but her conception was
supernatural; and by the Holy Spirit it was brought to pass that she was
not subjected to those evils which rightly are attached to natural
parturition.

On this canon should be read the extensive treatment of Asseman (Bib.
Juris Orient., Tom. v., pp. 193 et seqq.)

962

CANON LXXX

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are
enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave
necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very
long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive
Sundays — three weeks — if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a
layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXX

If anyone without the constraint of necessity leaves his church for three
Lord's days, he shall be deprived of communion.

This is a renewal of canon 1 l:of Sardica (xiv. according to the numbering of
Dionysins Exiguus.)

963

CANON LXXXI

Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there
is added after "Holy and Immortal," "Who was crucified for us, have
mercy upon us," and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient
and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who
inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming
the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers,
anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or
any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has
transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of
his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXI

Whoever adds to the hymn Trisagion these words "Who wast crucified"
shall be deemed heterodox.

The addition of the phrase condemned by this canon was probably made
first by Peter Fullo, and although indeed it was capable of a good meaning,
if the whole hymn was understood as being addressed to Christ, and
although this was admitted by very many of the orthodox, yet as it was
chiefly used by the Monophysites and with an undoubtedly heretical
intention, it was finally ousted from this position and its adherents were
styled Theopaschites. From all this it came about that by 518 it was a
source of disagreement among the Catholics, some affirming the
expression, as looked at by itself, to be a touchstone of orthodoxy. The
Emperor Justinian tried to, have it approved by Pope Hormisdas, but
unsuccessfully, the pontiff only declaring that it was unnecessary, and
even dangerous. Fulgentius of Ruspe and Dionysius Exiguus had declared

964

it orthodox. Pope John II. almost came to the point of approving the
phrase "one of the Trinity suffered," nor did his successor Agapetus I.
speak any more definitely on the point, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council
directly approved the formula.

But this, of course, did not touch the point of its introduction into the
Trisagion or, more accurately, of the introduction of the words "who was
crucified for us."

It should have been noted that at a Home Synod in 478, Peter Fullo had
been deposed for the insertion of this clause, because he intended to imply
that the true God had suffered death upon the cross. This sentence was a
confirmation of one already pronounced against him by a synod held at
Antioch which had raised a man, Stephen by name, to its episcopal throne.

Such is the history of a matter which, while it seemed at first as of little
moment, yet for many years was a source of trouble in the Church. (Vide
Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. III., pp. 454, 457; Vol. IV., p. 26.)

965

CANON LXXXII

In some pictures of the venerable icons, a lamb is painted to which the
Precursor points his finger, which is received as a type of grace, indicating
beforehand through the Law, our true Lamb, Christ our God. Embracing
therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols of the truth, and
patterns given to the Church, we prefer "grace and truth," receiving it as
the fulfilment of the Law. In order therefore that "that which is perfect"
may be delineated to the eyes of all, at least in colored expression, we
decree that the figure in human form of the Lamb who taketh away the sin
of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited in images, instead of
the ancient lamb, so that all may understand by means of it the depths of
the humiliation of the Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory
his conversation in the flesh, his passion and salutary death, and his
redemption which was wrought for the whole world.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXII

Thou shalt not paint a lamb for the type of Christ, but himself.

As from this canon, a century earlier than the iconoclastic controversy, the
prevalence of pictures is evident, so from the canon of the same synod
with regard to the veneration due to the image of the cross (number lxxiii.),
we learn that the teaching of the Church with regard to relative worship
was the same as was subsequently set forth, so that the charge of
innovating, sometimes rashly brought against the Seventh Ecumenical
Council, has no foundation in fact whatever.

This canon is further interesting as being the one cited by more than one
Pope and Western Authority as belonging to "the Sixth Synod."

966

CANON LXXXm

No one may give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead; for it is written
"Take and eat." But the bodies of the dead can neither "take" nor "eat."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIH

The Sacraments must not be given to a dead body.

This is canon 4:of the Council of Hippo, in the year 393. (Vide Hefele,
Vol. II, p. 397.) The earlier canon includes baptism also, in its prohibition.
This is canons 18:and 20:of the African code, according to the Greek
numbering.

967

CANON LXXXIV.

Following the canonical laws of the Fathers, we decree concerning
infants, as often as they are found without trusty witnesses who say that
they are undoubtedly baptized; and as often as they are themselves unable
on account of their age to answer satisfactorily in respect to the initiatory
mystery given to them; that they ought without any offense to be
baptized, lest such a doubt might deprive them of the sanctification of
such a purification.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIV

Whoever do not know nor can prove by documents that they have been
baptized, let them be christened.

This is canon VII., of the Sixth Council of Carthage, (Vide Hefele, Hist, of
the Councils, Vol. II., p. 424); and Canon lxxv., of the African code (to
which Balsam on attributes this canon), by the Greek numbering, (lxxii. by
the Latin).

968

CANON LXXXV

We have received from the Scriptures that in the mouth of two or three
witnesses every word shall be established. Therefore we decree that slaves
who are manumitted by their masters in the presence of three witnesses
shall enjoy that honor; for they being present at the time will add strength
and stability to the liberty given, and they will bring it to pass that faith
will be kept in those things which they now witness were done in their
presence.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXV

A slave manumitted by his master before two witnesses shall be free.

969

CANON LXXXVI

Those who to the destruction of their own souls procure and bring up
harlots, if they be clerics, they are to be [cut off and] deposed, if laymen
to be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVI

Whoever gathers together harlots to the ruin of souls, shall be cut off.

The brackets enclose the reading of Hervetus. But Zonaras had this same
text, and therefore it may be safely followed instead of that of Balsamon,
as edited by Beveridge.

970

CANON LXXXVH

She who has left her husband is an adulteress if she has come to another,
according to the holy and divine Basil, who has gathered this most
excellently from the prophet Jeremiah: "If a woman has become another
man' s, her husband shall not return to her, but being defiled she shall
remain defiled;" and again, "He who has an adulteress is senseless and
impious." If therefore she appears to have departed from her husband
without reason, he is deserving of pardon and she of punishment. And
pardon shall be given to him that he may be in communion with the
Church. But he who leaves the wife lawfully given him, and shall take
another is guilty of adultery by the sentence of the Lord. And it has been
decreed by our Fathers that they who are such must be "weepers" for a
year, "hearers" for two years, "prostrators" for three years, and in the
seventh year to stand with the faithful and thus be counted worthy of the
Oblation [if with tears they do penance.]

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVH

She who goes from her husband to another man is an adulteress. And he
who from his wife goes to another woman is an adulterer according to the
word of the Lord.

Compare with this canon lviij. of St. Basil.

The words in brackets are found in Beveridge, but were lacking in
Hervetus's text.

971

JOHNSON

Here discipline is relaxed; formerly an adulteress did fifteen years'
penance. See Can. Bas., 58. No wonder if in 200 years' time from St.
Basil, the severity of discipline was abated.

972

CANON LXXXVm

No one may drive any beast into a church except perchance a traveler,
urged thereto by the greatest necessity, in default of a shed or
resting-place, may have turned aside into said church. For unless the beast
had been taken inside, it would have perished, and he, by the loss of his
beast of burden, and thus without means of continuing his journey, would
be in peril of death. And we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man:
wherefore also the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed
first. But should anyone be detected without any necessity such as we
have just mentioned, leading his beast into a church, if he be a cleric let him
be deposed, and if a layman let him be cut off.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVHI

Cattle shall not be led into the holy halls, unless the greatest necessity
compels it.

973

CANON LXXXLX

The faithful spending the days of the Salutatory Passion in fasting,
praying and compunction of heart, ought to fast until the midnight of the
Great Sabbath: since the divine Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, have
shewn us how late at night it was [that the resurrection took place], the
one by using the words 6\|/e cjocPPoctcov, and the other by the words
opGpot) |3a9eo<;.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIX

On the Great Sabbath the fast must be continued until midnight.

974

CANON XC

We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honor of
Christ's resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we
should ignore the fullness of this observance we make it plain to the
faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on
Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer
until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline,
again with banded knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the
night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord's
resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading
our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and
night, we celebrate the Resurrection.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XC

From the evening entrance of the Sabbath until the evening entrance of the
Lord's day there must be no kneeling.

VAN ESPEN

No doubt the synod by the words "we have received from the divine
Fathers," referred to canon 20:of the Council of Nice. For many centuries
this custom was preserved even in the Latin Church; and the custom of
keeping feasts and whole days generally from evening to evening is
believed to have been an Apostolic tradition, received by them from the
Jews. At the end of the VHIth Century the Synod of Frankfort declared in

975

its xxj. canon, that "the Lord's day should be kept from evening to
evening."

976

CANON XCI

Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive
poisons to kill the fetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCI

Whoever gives or receives medicine to produce abortion is a homicide,

See Canon XXI. of Ancyra, and Canon II. of St. Basil; to wit, "She who
purposely destroys the fetus, shall suffer the punishment of murder. And
we pay no attention to the subtle distinction as to whether the fetus was
formed or unformed. And by this not only is justice satisfied for the child
that should have been born, but also for her who prepared for herself the
snares, since the women very often die who make such experiments."

977

CANON XCII

The holy synod decrees that those who in the name of marriage carry off
women and those who in any way assist the ravishers, if they be clerics,
they shall lose their rank, but if they be laymen they shall be
anathematized.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCII

Those who run away with women, and those who assist and give a hand, if
they be clerics they shall be deposed, if laymen they shall be anathematized.

VAN ESPEN

This canon simply renews and confirms Canon xxvij of Chalcedon.

978

CANON XCIII

If the wife of a man who has gone away and does not appear, cohabit with
another before she is assured of the death of the first, she is an adulteress.
The wives of soldiers who have married husbands who do not appear are
in the same case; as are also they who on account of the wanderings of
their husbands do not wait for their return. But the circumstance here has
some excuse, in that the suspicion of his death becomes very great. But
she who in ignorance has married a man who at the time was deserted by
his wife, and then is dismissed because his first wife returns to him, has
indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she is not
prevented from marrying, but it is better if she remain as she is. If a soldier
shall return after a long time, and find his wife on account of his long
absence has been united to another man, if he so wishes, he may receive
his own wife [back again], pardon being extended in consideration of their
ignorance both to her and to the man who took her home in second
marriage.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIH

A woman who when her husband does not turn up, before she is certain he
is dead, takes another commits adultery. But when the man returns he may
receive her again, if he so elects.

Compare in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II.,
Causa xxxiv., Quaest. I. and II. Epistle of St Leo to Nicetas. Also compare
of St. Basil's canon's xxxj., xxxyj., and xlvj.

979

CANON XCIV.

The canon subjects to penalties those who take heathen oaths, and we
decree to them excommunication.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIV

Whoever uses Gentile oaths, is worthy of punishment, for he is cut off.
The reference is to canon lxxxj. of St. Basil's canons.

VAN ESPEN

Tertullian (De Idolatria, cap. xx.) supposes that to swear by the false gods
of the Gentiles, contains in itself some idolatry, an opinion shared by St.
Basil, comparing those using such oaths with them who betrayed Christ,
and who are partakers of the talk of devils.

980

CANON XCV

Those who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number
of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order
and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves
Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitae, or Tetraditae, and
Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their
anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy
Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy
chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal
them we say — "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost."

But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic
Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also,
who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called
Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the
Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other
heresies — for there are many heretics here, especially those who come
from the region of the Galatians — all of their number who are desirous of
coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day
we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third
day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their
faces and cars; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in
church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.

And the Manichaeans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar
heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and
also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such
heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and
so they become partakers of the holy Communion.

981

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCV

Thus we admit those converted from the heretics. We anoint with the holy
chrism, upon the brow, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, Arians,
Macedonians, Novatians (who are called Cathari), Aristerians (who are
called Quartadecimans or Tetraditae), and Apollinarians when they
anathematize every heresy; and sign them with the cross as we say, "The
Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. Amen. "

Compare with this Canon 7:of Laodicea, and the so-called vijth. canon of
the First Council of Constantinople.

The text I have translated is that ordinarily given, I now present to the
reader Hefele's argument for its worthlessness.

HEFFLE.

This text is undoubtedly false, for (a) the baptism of the Gnostics was,
according to the recognized ecclesiastical principle, invalid, and a Gnostic
coming into the Church was required to be baptized anew; (b) besides, it
would have us first to require of a Gnostic an anathema on Nestorius,
Eutyches, etc. More accurate, therefore, is the text, as it is given by
Beveridge, and as Balsamon had it, to the effect that: "In the same way (as
the preceding) are the Munichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and similar
heretics to be treated (i.e., to be baptized anew); but the Nestorians must
(merely) present certificates, and anathematize their heresy. Nestortius,
Eutyches, etc." Here we have only this mistake, that the Nestorians must
anathematize, among others, also Eutyches, which they would certainly
have done very willingly. At the best, we must suppose that there is a gap
in the text, and that after, "all of similar heresies," we must add "the later

982

heretics must present certificates and anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches,
etc."

There seems but little doubt that whatever may be the truth in the matter,
the early theologians and fathers held that even though the external rite of
Holy Baptism might be validly performed by schismatics and heretics, yet
that by it the person so baptized did not receive the Holy Ghost, and this
opinion was not confined to the East, but was also prevalent in the West.
Vide Rupertus, De Divinis Officiis, Lib. X., Cap. xxv.

983

CANON XCVI

Those who by baptism have put on Christ have professed that they will
copy his manner of life which he led in the flesh. Those therefore who
adorn and arrange their hair to the detriment of those who see them, that is
by cunningly devised intertwining s, and by this means put a bait in the
way of unstable souls, we take in hand to cure paternally with a suitable
punishment: training them and teaching them to live soberly, in order that
having laid aside the deceit and vanity of material things, they may give
their minds continually to a life which is blessed and free from mischief,
and have their conversation in fear, pure, [and holy]; and thus come as near
as possible to God through their purity of life; and adorn the inner man
rather than the outer, and that with virtues, and good and blameless
manners, so that they leave in themselves no remains of the
left-handedness of the adversary. But if any shall act contrary to the
present canon let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVI

Whoever twist up their hair into artistic plaits for the destruction of the
beholders are to be cut off.

For the intricate manner of dressing the hair used in the East, and for a
description of the golden dye, see the scholion of Zonaras. Van Espen
remarks that the curious care for somebody else's hair in the form of wigs,
so prevalent with many laymen and ecclesiastics of his day, is the same
vice condemned by the canon in another shape.

984

CANON XCVII

Those who have commerce with a wife or in any other manner without
regard thereto make sacred places common, and treat them with contempt
and thus remain in them, we order all such to be expelled, even from the
dwellings of the catechumens which are in the venerable temples. And if
any one shall not observe these directions, if he be a cleric let him be
deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVII

Whoever in a temple has commerce with his wife and remains there out of
contempt, shall be expelled even from the Catechumens. If any one shall not
observe this he shall be deposed or cut off.

ZONARAS

In the name of holy places, not the church itself but the adjoining and
dependent buildings are intended such as those which are called the
"Catechumena." For no one would be audacious enough to wish to cohabit
with his wife in the very temple itself.

985

CANON XCVIII

He who brings to the intercourse of marriage a woman who is betrothed to
another man who is still alive, is to lie under the charge of adultery.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVIH

He is an adulterer who takes one espoused to some one else.

Aristenus's commentary on this canon is Eoccpfiq,. A more extraordinary
estimate of it could hardly be made. So far from the meaning being
"perspicuous," as the Latin translation has it, the meaning seems to be
past finding out; for, as Van Espen remarks, a man who sins with a
betrothed woman is certainly not an "adulterer." He tries therefore to
introduce the idea that though he is not an adulterer, yet he is to be
punished as if he were. But the Greek hardly seems patient of this
meaning, and the Ancient Epitome says in so many words that he is an
adulterer.

On account of this difficulty some have supposed that the espousals here
mentioned were not de futuro but de proesenti, and that therefore it was
the case of stealing a real wife of another man. But this explanation also is
involved in many difficulties.

986

CANON XCIX

We have further learned that, in the regions of the Armenians, certain
persons boil joints of meat within the sanctuary and offer portions to the
priests, distributing it after the Jewish fashion. Wherefore, that we may
keep the church undefiled, we decree that it is not lawful for any priest to
seize the separate portions of flesh meat from those who offer them, but
they are to be content with what he that offers pleases to give them; and
further we decree that such offering be made outside the church. And if
any one does not thus, let him be cut off.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIX

There are some who like the Jews cook meat in the holy places. Whoever
permits this, or receives aught from them, is not fit to be priest. But if any
one should of his own free choice offer it, then he might receive as much as
the offerer chose to give him, provided the offer were made outside the
church.

A similar Judaizing superstitious custom was also found in the West, of
which Walafrid Strabo gives an account in the IX. Century (De Rebus
Ecclesiasticis, cap. xviii.).

987

CANON C

"Let thine eyes behold the thing which is right," orders Wisdom, "and
keep thine heart with all care." For the bodily senses easily bring their own
impressions into the soul. Therefore we order that henceforth there shall in
no way be made pictures, whether they are in paintings or in what way so
ever, which attract the eye and corrupt the mind, and incite it to the
enkindling of base pleasures. And if any one shall attempt to do this he is
to be cut off.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON C

Pictures which induce impurity are not to be painted. Whoso shall
transgress shall be cut off.

988

CANON CI

The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the
image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every
sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial
dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life,
sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace.
Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body
in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him
draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive
the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels
of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these
receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as
preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any
one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who
bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings
them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CI

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a
cross, and takes it with his mouth; whoever shall prepare a receptacle of
gold or of any other material instead of his hand, shall be cut off.

BALSAMON

At first, perchance, this was invented from pious feelings, because the
hand which came in contact with base and unworthy things was not
worthy to receive the Lord's body, but, as time went on, piety was turned

989

to the injury of the soul, so that those who did this when they came to
receive with an arrogant and insolent bearing, were preferred to the poor.

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.

(Cateches. Mystagog. v.)

When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended,
nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for
thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm
receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.

Vide also St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. iv., cap. 14:On the
whole matter cf. Card. Bona, De Rebus Lit., lib. ii., cap. xvij., n. 3.

990

CANON CII

It behooves those who have received from God the power to loose and
bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for
conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is
injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing
of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and
multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which
much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the
power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the science of
spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of him who
has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary)
provokes to himself disease by his own behavior, and to look how he can
care for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the
physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the
imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he
is worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom
the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and
to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast
them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards
dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means
of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to
resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now
examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is
called to higher illumination. For we ought to know two things, to wit, the
things which belong to strictness and those which belong to custom, and to
follow the traditional form in the case of those who are not fitted for the
highest things, as holy Basil teaches us.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CII

The character of a sin must be considered from all points and conversion
expected. And so let mercy be meted out.

991

992

THE CANONS OF THE SYNODS OF SARDICA, CARTHAGE,

CONSTANTINOPLE, AND CARTHAGE UNDER ST. CYPRIAN,

WHICH CANONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL IN

TRULLO AND RATIFIED BY H. NICE.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

I have placed the canons of Sardica and those of Carthage and those of the
Council held at Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus, and that
of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, immediately after the
Council in Trullo, because in file second canon of that synod they are for
the first time mentioned by name as being accepted by the Universal
Church.

993

THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA

A.D. 343 OR 344.

Emperors. — CONSTANTIUS AND CONTANS.
Pope. — Julius I.

Elenchus.

Introduction on the date of the synod.

Note on the text of the canons.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Other Acts of the Synod.

Excursus as to this synod's claim to ecumenical character.

INTRODUCTION ON THE DATE OF THE COUNCIL.

(Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. II., pp. 86 et seqq.)

Our inquiries concerning the Synod of Sardica must begin with a
chronological examination of the date of this assembly. Socrates and
Sozomen place it expressly in the year 347 A.D., with the more precise
statement that it was held under the Consuls Rufinus and Eusebius in the
eleventh year after the death of Constantine the Great, therefore after the
22d of May, 347, according to our way of reckoning.

This was the most general view until, rather more than a hundred years
ago, the learned Scipio Maffei discovered at Verona, the fragment of a
Latin translation of an old Alexandrian chronicle (the Historia Acephala),
and edited it in the third volume of the Osservazioni Litterarii in 1738.
This fragment contains the information that on the 24th Phaophi (October
21), under the Consuls Constantius IV. and Constans II., in the year 346,

994

Athanasius had returned to Alexandria from his second exile. As it is
universally allowed, however, as we shall presently show more clearly,
that this return certainly only took place about two years after the Synod
of Sardica, Mansi hence saw the necessity of dating this synod as early as
the year 344. In this he is confirmed by St. Jerome, in the continuation of
the Eusebian chronicle, who, in accordance with the Historia Acephala, has
assigned the return of St. Athanasius to the tenth year of the reign of the
Emperor Constantius, in 346.

Many learned men now followed Mansi, the greater number blindly;
others, again, sought to contradict him, at first the learned Dominican,
Mamachi; then Dr. Wetzer (Professor at Freiburg); and latterly, we
ourselves in a treatise, "Controversen aber die Synode von Sardika," in the
Tubinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1852. Soon after there was a fresh
discovery. Some of the Paschal Letters of St. Athanasius, which until then
were supposed to be lost, were discovered in an Egyptian monastery, with
a very ancient preface translated into Syriac, and were published in that
language by Cureton in London, and in the year 1852 in German by
Professor Larsow, at the Gray Friars Convent, in Berlin.

Among these Festal Letters, the nineteenth, intended for Easter 347, and
therefore composed in the beginning of that year, had been rewritten in
Alexandria, as the introduction expressly states. This confirms the
statement of the Historia Acephala, that Athanasius was already returned
to Alexandria in October, 346, and confirms the chief points of Mansi' s
hypothesis; while, on the other hand, it unanswerably refutes, by
Athanasius' own testimony, the statements of Socrates and Sozomen
(which, from their dependence on each other, only count as one), with
reference to the date 347.

As we said, Mansi placed this Synod in the year 344; but the old preface
to the Festal Letters of St. Athanasius dates it in the year 343, and in fact
we can now only hesitate between the dates 343 and 344. If the preface
were as ancient and as powerfully convincing as the Festal Letters
themselves, then the question concerning the date of the Council of Sardica
would be most accurately decided. As, however, this preface contains
mistakes in several places, especially chronological errors — for instance,
regarding the death of Constantine the Great — we cannot unconditionally

995

accept its statement as to the date 344, but can only do so when it
corresponds with other dates concerning that time.

Let us, at all events, assume that Athanasius came to Rome about Easter,
340. As is known, he was there for three whole years, and in the beginning
of the fourth year was summoned to the Emperor Constans at Milan. This
points to the summer of 343. From thence he went through Gaul to
Sardica, and thus it is quite possible that that Synod might have begun in
the autumn of 343. It probably lasted, however, until the spring; for when
the two envoys, Euphrates of Cologne, and Vincent of Capua, who were
sent by the Synod to the Emperor Constans, arrived in Antioch, it was
already Easter 344. Stephen, the bishop of the latter city, treated them in a
truly diabolical manner; but his wickedness soon became notorious, and a
synod was established, which deposed him after Easter 344. Its members
were Eusebians, who therefore appointed Leontius Castratus as Stephen's
successor, and it is indeed no other than this assembly which Athanasius
has in mind, when he says it took place three years after the Synod in
Encoeniis, and drew up a very explicit Eusebian confession of faith, the
paKpooTi%o<;.

The disgraceful behavior of Bishop Stephen of Antioch for some time
inclined the Emperor to place less confidence in the Arian party, and to
allow Athanasius' s exiled clergy to return home in the summer of 344. Ten
months later, the pseudo-bishop, Gregory of Alexandria, died (in June,
345), and Constantius did not permit any fresh appointment to the see of
Alexandria, but recalled St. Athanasius by three letters, and waited for him
more than a year. Thus the see of Alexandria remained unoccupied for
more than a year, until the last six months of 346. At length, in October,
346, Athanasius returned to his bishopric.

We see then that by accepting the distinct statements of the Paschal
Letters of St. Athanasius and the preface, we obtain a satisfactory
chronological system in which the separate details cohere well together,
and which thus recommends itself. One great objection which we formerly
raised ourselves against the date 344 can now be solved. It is certainly true
that in 353 or 354 Pope Librius wrote thus: "Eight years ago the Eusebian
deputies, Eudoxius and Martyrius (who came to the West with the
formula (j,aKpoaTiKO<;), refused to anathematize the Arian doctrine at

996

Milan." But the Synod of Milan here alluded to, and placed about the year
345, was not, as we before erroneously supposed, held before the Synod
of Sardica, but after it. We are somewhat less fortunate as regards another
difficulty. The Eusebians assembled at Philippopolis (the pseudo-synod
of Sardica) say, in their synodal letter: "Bishop Asclepas of Gaza was
deposed from his bishopric seventeen years ago." This deposition
occurred at an Antiochian synod. If we identified this synod with the
well-known one of 330, by which Eustathius of Antioch also was
overthrown, we should, reckoning the seventeen years, have the year 346
or 347, in which to place the writing of the Synodal Letter of
Philippopolis, and therefore the Synod of Sardica. There are, however,
two ways of avoiding this conclusion, either we must suppose that
Asclepas has been already deposed a year or so before the Antiochian
Synod of 330; or that the statement as to the number seventeen in the
Latin translation of the Synodal Letter of Philippopolis (for we no longer
possess the original text) is an error or slip of the pen. But in no case can
this Synodal Letter alter the fact that Athanasius was again in Alexandria
when he composed his Paschal Letter for the year 347, and that the Synod
of Sardica must therefore have been held several years before.

NOTE ON THE TEXT OF THE CANONS.

The Canons of Sardica have come down to us both in Greek and Latin, and
some writers such as Richer (Histoire Cone. Generate, Tom. L, p. 98),
have been of opinion that the Latin text alone was the original, while
others, such as Walch (Gesch. der Kirchenvers., p. 179), have arrived at a
directly opposite conclusion. Now, however, chiefly owing to the
investigations of the Ballerini and of Spittler, the unanimous opinion of
scholars — so says Hefele — is that the canons were originally drawn up
in both languages, intended as they were for both Latins and Greeks. I may
perhaps remind the reader that in many Western collections of canons the
canons of Sardica immediately follow those of Nice without any break, or
note that they were not enacted at that council. It will also be well to bear
in mind that they were received by the Greeks as of Ecumenical authority
by the Council in Trullo, and as such are contained in the body of the
Greek Canon Law.

997
I have provided the reader with a very accurate translation of each text.

998

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA

The holy synod assembled in Sardica from various provinces decreed as
follows.

{Found in Greek in John of Constantinople' s collection of the sixth century
and several other MSS. Found also in the works of the Greek scholiasts.
Found in Latin in the Prisca, in Dionysius Exiguus, and in Isidore, genuine
and false.)

CANON I.

(Greek.)

Hosius , bishop of the city of Corduba, said: A prevalent evil, or rather
most mischievous corruption must be done away with from its very
foundations. Let no bishop be allowed to remove from a small city to a
different one: as there is an obvious reason for this fault, accounting for
such attempts; since no bishop could ever yet be found who endeavored to
be translated from a larger city to a smaller one. It is therefore evident that
such persons are inflamed with excessive covetousness and are only
serving ambition in order to have the repute of possessing greater
authority. Is it then the pleasure of all that so grave an abuse be punished
with great severity? For I think that men of this sort should not be
admitted even to lay communion. All the bishops said: It is the pleasure of
all.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: A prevalent evil and mischievous corruption must be
done away with from its foundation. Let no bishop be allowed to remove
from his own city to another. For the reason of such attempts is manifest,

999

since in this matter no bishop has been found who would remove from a
larger city to a smaller one. It is therefore evident that these men are
inflamed with excess of covetousness, and are serving ambition and aiming
at the possession of power. If it be the pleasure of all, let so great an evil
be punished right harshly and sternly, so that he who is such shall not
even be admitted to lay communion. All with one accord answered: Such is
our pleasure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

NO bishop is to be found passing from a smaller to a greater city. If
anyone should move from an humble to a more important see, he shall be
excommunicated through his whole life as proud and grasping.

VAN ESPEN

{Dissert, in Synod. Sard., II.)

What Peter de Marca says (De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp., Lib. V., cap.
iv.), "Hosius presided over" this council as legate of the Roman bishop,
rests upon no solid foundation, and no trace of any such legation is found
in Athanasius or in any of the other writers who treated of this synod.
Moreover such a thing is contrary to the form of subscription used. For of
those who signed the first is Hosius, and Athanasius designates him
simply as "from Spain," without any addition; and then next he mentions
"Julius of Rome, by Archidamus and Philoxenus, his presbyters," etc.
What is clearer than that, by the testimony of Athanasius, Julius was
present by these two presbyters only, and that they only were his legates
or vicars, who in his room were present at this synod?

The first part of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici;
Raymund's Decretales, De Clericis non residentibus, Cap. ii.

1000

1001

CANON II

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: But if any such person should be found so mad or
audacious as to think to advance by way of excuse an affirmation that he
had brought letters from the people [laity], it is plain that some few
persons, corrupted by bribes and rewards, could have got up an uproar in
the church, demanding, forsooth, the said man for bishop. I think then that
practices and devices of such sort absolutely must be punished, so that a
man of this kind be deemed unworthy even of lay communion in extremis.
Do ye therefore make answer whether this sentence is approved by you.
They [the bishops] answered: What has been said is approved of.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Even if any such person should show himself so rash
as perhaps to allege as an excuse and affirm that he has received letters
from the people, inasmuch as it is evident that a few persons could have
been corrupted by rewards and bribes — [namely] persons who do not
hold the pure faith — to raise an uproar in the church, and seem to ask for
the said man as bishop; I judge that these frauds must be condemned, so
that such an one should not receive even lay communion at the last. If ye
all approve, do ye decree it. The synod answered: We approve.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON L

If anyone shall pass from one city to another, and shall raise up seditions,
tickling the people and be assisted by them in raising a disturbance, he
shall not be allowed communion even when dying.

1002

VAN ESPEN

To understand this canon aright it must be remembered that in the first
ages of the Church the people were accustomed to have a share in the
election of their bishop; and he whom the people demanded was usually
ordained their bishop.

ARISTENUS.

This [penalty] is something unheard of and horrible, that he should not be
deemed worthy of communion even at the hour of death; for it is a
provision found nowhere else imposed by any canon, nor inflicted upon
any sin.

VAN ESPEN

The Greek author Aristenus [in the above remarks] probably has not erred
from the truth when he asserts that to no crime was this penalty attached,
if he refers to the Eastern Churches; for Morinus himself (in the xixth
chapter of the ixth book, De Penitentia), confesses that this penalty was
never attached to any crime among the Easterns: nevertheless in some
Churches in the first ages the three crimes of idolatry, murder, and
adultery were thus punished: that is, that to those who admitted any one
of these, reconciliation was denied even at his death, "and this," says
Morinus, "I think no one can deny, who is at all versed in the testimony
of the ancients on this point."

HEFELE

The addition in the Latin text, qui sinceram fidem non habent, is found
both in Dionysius Exiguus and in Isidore and the Prisca, and its meaning is
as follows: "In a town, some few, especially those who have not the true

1003

faith, can be easily bribed to demand this or that person as bishop." The
Fathers of Sardica plainly had here in view the Arians and their adherents,
who, through such like machinations, when they had gained over, if only a
small party in a town, sought to press into the bishoprics. The Synod of
Antioch moreover, in 341, although the Eusebians, properly speaking,
were dominant there, had laid down in the twenty-first canon a similar,
only less severe, rule.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Raymond's Decretales,
cap. if, De electione, but with the noteworthy addition "unless he shall
have repented." These words do not occur in the other Latin versions, and
Hefele thinks them to have been added by Raymond of Pennaforte.

1004

CANON III

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add, — that no bishop
pass from his own province to another province in which there are
bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to
close the gates of charity. And this case likewise is to be provided for, that
if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and
fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from
another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he
supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question
may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the
memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to
Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried
by the bishops of the neighboring provinces and let him appoint arbiters;
but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new
trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add, — that bishops shall
not pass from their own province to another province in which there are
bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we
seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother
bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another
province.

But if judgment, have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that
he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it
be your pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those
who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall
judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint

1005

judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former
decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is
this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

No bishop, unless called thereto, shall pass to another city. Moreover a
bishop of the province who is engaged in any litigation shall not appeal to
outside bishops. But if Rome hears the cause, even outsiders may be
present.

VAN ESPEN

According to the reading of Dionysius and Isidore, as well as of the
Greeks, Balsamon, Zonaras and Aristenus, as also of Hervetus the
provision is that bishops of one province shall not pass to another in
which there are NOT bishops.

ZONARAS

Not only are bishops prohibited from changing their cities, and passing
from a smaller to a larger one, but also from passing from one province to
another in which there are bishops, for the sake of doing any ecclesiastical
work there unless they are called by the bishops of that province.

On the phrase "if it pleases you" the following from St. Athanasius is
much to the point (cit. by Pusey, Councils, p. 143). "They [i.e., the
Council of Nice] wrote concerning Easter, 't seemed good' as follows: for
it did then seem good, that there should be a general compliance; but about
the faith they wrote not 'It seemed good,' but 'Thus believes the Catholic

1006

Church' ; and thereupon they confessed how the faith lay, in order to shew
that their sentiments were not novel, but apostolic."

TILLEMONT.

This form is very strong to shew that it was a right which the Pope had
not had hitherto.

VAN ESPEN

Peter de Marca (De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, Lib. VII., Cap. iij., 8)
says that Ho-sins here proposed to the fathers to honor the memory of St.
Peter that he might the more easily lead them to consent to this new
privilege; for, as De Marca has proved, the right here bestowed upon the
Roman Pontiff was clearly unknown before.

It has been urged that the mention of the pope by name, intimates clearly
that the provision of these canons of an appeal to Rome was of a purely
temporary character; and some famous authors such as Edmund Richer, of
the Sorbonne, have written in defense of this view, but Hefele quotes with
great force the words of the learned Protestant, Spittler (Critical
Examination of the Sardican Decisions. Spittler, Sammtlichen Werken, P.
viii., p. 129 sq.).

SPITTLER.

It is said that these Sardican decisions were simply provisional, and
intended for the present necessity; because Athanasius, so hardly pressed
by the Arians, could only be rescued by authorizing an appeal to the
Bishop of Rome for a final judgment. Richer, in his History of the General
Councils, has elaborately defended this opinion, and Horix also has
declared in its favor. But would not all secure use of the canons of the
councils be done away with if this distinction between provisional and
permanent synodal decisions were admitted? Is there any sure criterion for

1007

distinguishing those canons which were only to be provisional, from the
others which were made for all future centuries? The Fathers of the Synod
of Sardica express themselves quite generally; is it not therefore most
arbitrary on our part to insert limitations? It is beyond question that these
decisions were occasioned by the very critical state of the affairs of
Athanasius; but is everything only provisional that is occasioned by the
circumstances of individuals? In this way the most important of the
ancient canons might be set aside.

HEFELE

According to the Greek text, and that of Dionysius, those who had
pronounced the first judgment were to write to Rome; and Fuchs rightly
adds, that they were to do this at the desire of the condemned. But,
according to Isidore and the Prisca, the right or the duty of bringing the
affair before Rome, also belonged to the neighboring bishops. I believe that
the last interpretation has only arisen through a mistake, from a comment
belonging to the next sentence being inserted in the wrong place. It only
remains to be remarked here, that Isidore and the Prisca have not the name
Julio,... But Hardouin's conjecture, that instead of Julio, perhaps it may be
read, is entirely gratuitous, contrary to the Greek text, and plainly only a
stratagem against the Gallicans.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VI., Quaest. iv., Canon j. 7, in Isidore's version.
Dionysius' s version is quite wrong as given by Justellus and in the
Munich edition, changing the negative into the affirmative in the phrase ne
unus de duobus.

1008

CANON IV

(Greek.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add
to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if
any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighboring bishops, and
assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in
his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

(Latin.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to
this sentence full of sanctity which thou hast pronounced, that — when
any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have
sees in neighboring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce
that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome — that no other bishop
shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is
apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the
judgment of the Roman bishop.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

If a bishop has been deposed and affirms that he has an excuse to urge,
unless Rome has judged the case, no bishop shall be appointed in his
room. For he might treat the decree with scorn either through his nuncios
or by his letters.

There are two distinct understandings of this canon. The one view is that
the "neighbors" of this canon are the same as the "neighbors" of the
preceding canon (number iij.) and that the meaning of this canon therefore
is — If the court of second instance, correlating of the bishops of the
neighboring province, has pronounced the accused guilty, he still has one

1009

more appeal to a third court, viz., Rome. This is the view taken by the
Greeks, Zonaras and Balsamon, by the Ballerini, Van Espen, Palrod,
Walter, Natalis Alexander and many others.

In direct opposition to this is the view that there is no third but only a
second appeal mentioned by the canon. The supporters of this
interpretation are Peter de Marca, Tillemont, Dupin, Fleury, Remi Ceillier,
Neander, Stolberg, Echhorn, Kober, and with these Hefele sides and states
his reasons for doing so.

HEFELE

There must be added to the reasons of the connection of this canon with
the preceding, the course of events, etc.:

1 . That it certainly would be very curious if in the third canon mention
was made of the appeal to Rome as following the judgment of the court of
first instance; in the fourth, after that of the court of second instance; and
again in the fifth, after the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. That if the Synod had really intended to institute a court of third
instance, it would have done so in clearer and more express terms, and not
only have, as it were, smuggled in the whole point with the secondary
question, as to "what was to be done with the bishop's see."

3. Farther, that it is quite devoid of proof that the expression "neighboring
bishops" is identical with "Bishops in the neighborhood of the said
Province," that, indeed this identification is throughout unwarrantable and
wrong, and it is far more natural to understand by the neighboring bishops,
the comprovincials, therefore the court of first instance.

4. That by this interpretation we obtain clearness, consistency, and
harmony in all three canons.

5. That the word Ttdc^iv in the fourth canon presents no difficulty; for
even one who has only been heard in the court of first instance may say he
desires again to defend himself, because he has already made his first
defense in the court of first instance.

1010

CANON V.

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the
bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and
he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the
Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to
renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those
fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the
particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in
accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be
heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of
Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop,
according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right — that some
be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by
whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the
bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let
him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the
bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who
has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the
Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the
trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to
those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighboring province, that they
may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the
word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his
entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be
in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine
upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be

1011

judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were
appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops
suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in
his most wise judgment.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

[Lacking.]

This Canon is 7:of Isidore's collection.

VAN ESPEN

Here there is properly speaking no provision for "appeal," which entirely
suspends [i.e. by the canon law] the execution and effect of the first
sentence; but rather for a revision of judgment....; those who were sent by
the Roman bishop from his side (a latere) or the bishops wire were
appointed, ought, together with the bishops of the province who had given
the former sentence, to give a fresh judgment and declare their sentence.
And this Hinemar of Rheinus was the first to notice in his letters in the
name of Charles the Bald sent to John VIII.

This view is supported with his accustomed learning and acumen by Du
Pin, De Antigua Eccl. Disciplina, Diss. II., Cap. I., Sec. 3.

1012

CANON VI

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: If it happen that in a province in which there are
very many bishops one bishop should stay away and by some negligence
should not come to the council and assent to the appointment made by the
bishops, but the people assemble and pray that the ordination of the
bishop desired by them take place — it is necessary that the bishop who
stayed away should first be reminded by letters from the exarch of the
province (I mean, of course, the bishop of the metropolis), that the people
demand a pastor to be given them. I think that it is well to await his [the
absent bishop's] arrival also. But if after summons by letter he does not
come, nor even write in reply, the wish of the people ought to be complied
with.

The bishops from the neighboring provinces also should be invited to the
ordination of the bishop of the metropolis.

It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty town,
for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no necessity
to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be
made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before
said, to ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops
previously; and if a city should be found with a population so large as to
be thought worthy of an episcopal see, let it receive one.

Is this the pleasure of all? All answered: It is our pleasure.

(Latin.)

Bishop Ho s iu s said: If it shall have happened, that in a province in which
there have been very many bishops, one [i.e., but one] bishop remains, but
that he by negligence has not chosen [to ordain] a bishop, and the people
have made application, the bishops of the neighboring province ought first
to address [by letter] the bishop who resides in that province, and show
that the people seek a ruler [i.e., pastor] for themselves and that this is
right, so that they also may come and with him ordain a bishop. But if he
refuses to acknowledge their written communication, and leaves it

1013

unnoticed, and writes no reply, the people's request should be satisfied,
so that bishops should come from the neighboring province and ordain a
bishop.

But permission is not to be given to ordain a bishop either in any village,
or in an unimportant city, for which one presbyter suffices, lest the name
and authority of bishop grow cheap. Those [bishops] who are invited
from another province ought not to ordain a bishop unless in the cities
which have [previously] had bishops, or in a city which is so important or
so populous as to be entitled to have a bishop.

Is this the pleasure of all? The synod replied: It is our pleasure.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

If the bishops were present when the people were seeking for a bishop, and
one was away, let that one be called. Butt if he is willing to answer the call
neither by letter nor in person, let him be ordained whom they desire.

When a Metropolitan is appointed the neighboring bishops are to be sent
for.

In a little city and town, for which one presbyter suffices, a bishop is not to
be appointed. But if the city be very populous, it is not unfitting to do so.

The second portion of this canon is entirely lacking in the Latin. The
Greek scholiasts, Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, understand this to
mean "that 'at the appointment of a metropolitan the bishops of the
neighboring provinces shall also be invited,' probably to give greater
solemnity to the act," so says Hefele. And to this agree Van Espen,
Tillemont, and Herbst.

The first part in the Greek and Latin have different meanings; the Greek
text contemplating the case of one bishop stopping away from a meeting
of bishops for an election to fill a vacancy; the Latin text the case of there
being only one bishop left in a province (after war, pestilence, or the like).
This second meaning is accepted by Van Espen, Christian Lupus and
others. Moreover, it would seem from Flodoard's History of the Church of
Rheims (Geschichte der Rheimser Kirche, Lib. III., c. 20 [a book I have

1014

never seen]) that the Gallican Church acted upon this understanding of this
canon. It is that also of Gratian.

Between the Latin and the Greek text stands the interpretation of Zonaras,
which is that if a province once having many bishops has by any
contingency only one left besides the Metropolitan, and he neglects to be
present at the consecration of the new bishops, he is to be summoned by
letter of the Metropolitan, and if he does not then come, the consecrations
are to go on without him. With this explanation Harmenopulus also agrees,
adding further that the Metropolitan might alone consecrate the bishops,
resting his argument on the words to ikocuov k.t.X.

Some scholars have supposed that neither the present Greek nor the
present Latin text represent the original, but that the Greek text is nearest
to it, but must be corrected by an ancient Latin version found by Maffei in
a codex at Verona. The Ballerini have devoted careful attention to this
point in their notes to the Works of St. Leo the Great (Tom. iii., p. xxxij.
4). It would seem that this might be the canon quoted by the fathers of
Constantinople in 382, and if so, it would seem that they had a Greek text
like that from which the Verona version was made.

VAN ESPEN

The fathers of Sardica [in the second part of this canon, which is Canon
VII. by the Latin computation] decreed two things: first, that where the
people justly asked for a Pastor to be ordained for them, their demand
should be complied with; but where the people insisted upon having a
bishop ordained for a village or little city, for which one presbyter was all
that was needed, no attention should be paid to their demands, lest the
name and authority of a bishop should become despicable.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian' s Decretum, P.
I., Distinc. lxv., c. ix.

1015

CANON VII

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: Our importunity and great pertinacity and unjust
petitions have brought it about that we do not have as much favor and
confidence as we ought to enjoy. For many of the bishops do not intermit
resorting to the imperial Court, especially the Africans, who, as we have
learned from our beloved brother and fellow-bishop, Gratus, do not accept
salutary counsels, but so despise them that one man carries to the Court
petitions many and diverse and of no possible benefit to the Church, and
does not (as ought to be done and as is fitting) assist and help the poor and
the laity or the widows, but is intriguing to obtain worldly dignities and
offices for certain persons. This evil then causes enfeeblement [better,
murmuring (read TovGp'UGU.ov or Tov9opi)au.6v)], not without some
scandal and blame to us. But I account it quite proper for a bishop to give
assistance to one oppressed by some one, or to a widow suffering
injustice, or, again, an orphan robbed of his estate, always provided that
these persons have a just cause of petition.

If, then, beloved brethren, this seems good to all, do ye decree that no
bishop shall go to the imperial Court except those whom our most pious
emperor may summon by his own letters. Yet since it often happens that
persons condemned for their offenses to deportation or banishment to an
island, or who have received some sentence or other, beg for mercy and
seek refuge with the Church [i.e., take sanctuary], such persons are not to
be refused assistance, but pardon should be asked for them without delay
and without hesitation. If this, then, is also your pleasure, do ye all vote
assent.

All gave answer: Be this also decreed.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Importunities and excessive pertinacity and unjust
petitions have caused us to have too little favor or confidence, while
certain bishops cease not to go to the Court, especially the Africans, who

1016

(as we have learned) spurn and contemn the salutary counsels of our most
holy brother and fellow-bishop, Gratus, so that they not only bring to the
Court many and diverse petitions (not for the good of the Church nor, as
is usual and right, to succor the poor or widows or orphans), but even seek
to obtain worldly dignities and offices for certain persons. This evil
therefore stirs up at times not only murmurings, but even scandals. But it
is proper that bishops should intercede for persons suffering from violence
and oppression, afflicted widows and defrauded orphans, provided,
nevertheless, that these persons have a just cause or petition.

If, then, brethren dearly beloved, such be your pleasure, do we decree that
no bishops go to the Court except those who may have been invited or
summoned by letters of the God-fearing emperor. But since it often
happens that those who are suffering from injustice or who are condemned
for their offenses to deportation or banishment to an island, or, in short,
have received some sentence or other, seek refuge with the mercy of the
Church, such persons should be succored and pardon be begged for them
without hesitation. Decree this, therefore, if it be your pleasure.

All said: It is our pleasure and be it decreed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

When an orphan, widow, and other desolate persons are oppressed by
force let the bishop give them succor and approach the Emperor; but
through a pretext of this kind let him not be a hanger on of the camp, but
rather let him send a deacon.

VAN ESPEN

The "salutary counsels" (salutaria consilia) here seem to be synodical
admonitions, as Zonaras notes; and these might well be ascribed to Gratus,

1017

the bishop of Carthage, because many of the African synods were held
under his presidency and direction.

Nothing is more noteworthy than how from the first princes summoned
bishops in counsel with regard to affairs touching either the estate of the
Church or of the Realm; and called them to their presence in urgent and
momentous cases, and kept them with them.

Justinian, the emperor, in his Novels (Chapter II.) defines that no one of
the God-beloved bishops shall dare to be absent any more from his diocese
for a whole year, and adds this exception, "unless he does so on account of
an imperial jussio; in this case alone he shall be held to be without blame."

On this whole matter of bishops interceding for culprits, and especially for
those condemned to death, see St. Augustine (Epist. 153 ad Macedonium).

With this canon may be compared Canon VII. of the Council of Rheims in
A.D. 630.

This canon is found in part in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decreturn, P. II., Causa xxiij., Quaest. viij., c. xxviij.

1018

CANON VIII.

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also let your sagacity determine, that —
inasmuch as this was decreed in order that a bishop might not fall under
censure by going to the Court — that if any have such petitions as we
mentioned above, they should send these by one of their deacons. For the
person of a subordinate does not excite jealousy, and what shall be granted
[by the Emperor] can thus be reported more quickly.

All answered: Be this also decreed.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also your forethought should provide for —
inasmuch as ye have made this decree in order that the audacity of bishops
might not labor [or, be observed] to go to Court. Whosoever therefore shall
have or receive petitions such as we have mentioned above, let them send
these [each] by a deacon of his, because the person of a minister is not an
object of jealousy, and he will be able to report more quickly what he has
obtained.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

[Lacking.]

1019

VAN ESPEN

This decree is threefold. First, that the bishop in going to Court should not
fall under suspicion either at Court or of his own people that he was
approaching the Prince to obtain some cause of his own. Second, according
to the interpretation of Zonaras, "that no one should be angry with the
Minister or Deacon who tarried in camp, as the bishop had departed
thence." And third, that the Minister could carry away what he had asked
for, that is (according to Zonaras), the letters of the Emperor pardoning
the fault, or such like other matters.

1020

CANON IX

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also, I think, follows, that, if in any province
whatever, bishops send petitions to one of their brothers and
fellow-bishops, he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis, should
himself send his deacon and the petitions, providing him also with letters
commendatory, writing also of course in succession to our brethren and
fellow-bishops, if any of them should be staying at that time in the places
or cities in which the most pious Emperor is administering public affairs.

But if any of the bishops should have friends at the Court and should wish
to make requests of them as to some proper object, let him not be
forbidden to make such requests through his deacon and move these
[friends] to give their kind assistance as his desire.

But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before, to deliver to our
beloved brother and fellow-bishop, Julius, the petitions which they have
to give, in order that he may first examine them, lest some of them should
be improper, and so, giving them his own advocacy and care, shall send
them to the Court.

All the Bishops made answer that such was their pleasure and that the
regulation was most proper.

(Latin.)

This also seems to follow, that from whatever province bishops shall send
petitions to that brother and fellow-bishop of ours who has his see in the
metropolis, he [the metropolitan] should dispatch his deacon with the
petitions, providing him with commendatory letters of like tenor to our
brethren and fellow-bishops at that time resident in those regions and
cities in which the fortunate and blessed Emperor is ruling the State.

If however a bishop who seeks to obtain some petition (a worthy one,
that is) has friends in the palace, he is not forbidden to make his request

1021

through his deacon and to advise those who, he knows, can kindly
intercede for him in his absence.

X. But let those who come to Rome, deliver, as before said, to our most
holy brother and follow-bishop, the bishop of the Roman church, the
petitions which they bear, that he also may examine whether they are
worthy and just, and let him give diligence and care that they be forwarded
to the Court.

All said that such was their pleasure and that the regulation was proper.

Bishop Alypius said: If they have incurred the discomforts of travel for
the sake of orphans and widows or any in distress and having cases that
are not unjust, they will have some good reason [for their journey]; but
now since they chiefly make requests which cannot be granted without
envy and reproach, it is not necessary for them to go to Court.

NOTE.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON

If one brother sends to another, let the Metropolitan fortify the nuncio with
letters; and let him write to the bishops, who have the matter in hand, to
protect the nuncio.

Here the Latin is not only a translation but an interpretation of the Greek
text, for it distinctly says that every bishop shall send the petition he
intends to present at court first to his Metropolitan, who shall send it in.
This is not clearly in the Greek, and yet the Greek Commentators find it
there.

CHRISTIAN LUPUS.

The authority of the bishop alone is not sufficient to send a deacon to
Court, there must be added the judgment of the Metropolitan who shall

1022

examine the petition, prove, sign, and commend it, not only to the Prince,
but also to the bishop in whose diocese he may happen to be.

HEFELE

Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus explained this canon somewhat
differently, thus: "If a bishop desires to send his petitions addressed to
the Emperor to the bishop of the town where the Emperor is staying, he
shall first send them to the Metropolitan of that province (according to
Aristenus, his own Metropolitan) and the latter shall send his own deacon
with letters of recommendation to the bishop or bishops who may be at
court." This difference rests upon the various meanings of "to the brother
and fellow-bishop" in the beginning of the canon. We understand by this
his own Metropolitan, and treat the words: 6 ev %r\ (xei^ovi k.t.X. as a
more exact definition of "fellow-bishop," and the participle Tuy%avcov as
equivalent to ruyxdcvei, and make the principal clause begin at avnbq koci
tov Si&kovov. Beveridge translated the canon in the same way. Zonaras
and others, on the contrary, understood by "fellow-bishop," the bishop of
the Emperor's residence for the time being, and regarded the words 6 ev
Tfl|xe'i^or| k.tI. not as a clearer definition of what had gone before, but as
the principal clause, in the sense of "then the Metropolitan shall," etc.
According to this interpretation, the words conveying the idea that the
bishop must have recourse to the Metropolitan are entirely wanting in the
canon.

The first part of this Canon is the last part of Canon IX. of the Latin. The
last part is Canon X. of the Latin, but the personal part about Alypius is
omitted from the Greek.

1023

CANON X

(Greeks.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also I think necessary. Ye should consider with
all thoroughness and care, that if some rich man or professional advocate
be desired for bishop, he be not ordained until he have fulfilled the
ministry of reader, deacon, and presbyter, in order that, passing by
promotion through the several grades, he may advance (if, that is, he be
found worthy) to the height of the episcopate. And he shall remain in each
order assuredly for no brief time, that so his faith, his reputable life, his
steadfastness of character and considerateness of demeanor may be
well-known, and that he, being deemed worthy of the divine sacerdotal
office [sacerdotium, i.e., the episcopate] may enjoy the highest honor. For
it is not fitting, nor does discipline or good conversation allow to proceed
to this act rashly or lightly, so as to ordain a bishop or presbyter or
deacon hastily; as thus he would rightly be accounted a novice, especially
since also the most blessed Apostle, he who was the teacher of the
Gentiles, is seen to have forbidden hasty ordinations; for the test of [even]
the longest period will not unreasonably be required to exemplify the
conversation and character of each [candidate].

All said that this was their pleasure and that it must be absolutely
irreversible.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also I think it necessary for you to consider
most carefully, that if perchance some rich man or professional advocate
or ex-official be desired for bishop, he be not ordained until he have
fulfilled the ministry of a reader and the office of deacon and presbyter,
and so ascend, if he have shown himself worthy, through the several
grades to the height of the episcopate. For by these promotions which in
any case take a considerable length of time can be tested his faith, his
discretion, his gravity and modesty. And if he be found worthy, let him be
honored with the divine sacerdotal office [i.e. the episcopate]. For it is not

1024

fitting, nor does order or discipline allow, that one be rashly or lightly
ordained bishop, presbyter or deacon, who is a novice, especially since
also the blessed Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, is seen to have
expressly forbidden it. But those [should be ordained] whose life has been
tested and their merit approved by length of time.

All said that this was their pleasure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

No lawyer, teacher, or gentleman (nXovoxoc,) shall be made a bishop
without passing through the holy orders. Nor shall the space of time
between the orders be made too brief, that there may be a better proof of
his faith and good conversation. For otherwise he is a neophyte.

This is Canon XIII. of Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca.

VAN ESPEN

By Scholasticus deforo ["professional advocate"] must be understood an
eloquent pleader of difficult causes, who being bound up in forensic
disputes and strifes, may be presumed to be little fitted for the priesthood,
and therefore to need a more strict examination.

The Synodal approbation is lacking in Dionysius as given by Justellus, as
well as in that of the Roman Code, but is found in Labbe's reprint of
Dionysius and Isidore.

This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P.
I., Dist. lxj., c. x.

1025

CANON XI

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also we ought to decree, that when a bishop
comes from one city to another city, or from one province to another
province, to indulge boastfulness, ministering to his own praises rather
than serving religious devotion, and wishes to prolong his stay [in a city],
and the bishop of that city is not skilled in teaching, let him [the visiting
bishop] not do despite to the bishop of the place and attempt by frequent
discourses to disparage him and lessen his repute (for this device is wont
to cause tumults), and strive by such arts to solicit and wrest to himself
another's throne, not scrupling to abandon the church committed to him
and to procure translation to another. A definite limit of time should
therefore be set in such a case, especially since not to receive a bishop is
accounted the part of rude and discourteous persons. Ye remember that in
former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were staying in a city and
should not come to divine worship for three [successive] Sundays [that
is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion. If then
this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor
fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave
necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own
church and distress the people committed to him.

All the bishops said: We decide that this decree also is most proper.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also ye ought to determine. If abishop comes
from one city to another city, or from his own province to another
province, and serving ambition rather than devotion, wishes to remain
resident for a long time in a strange city, and then (as it perchance happens
that the bishop of the place is not so practiced or so learned as himself) he,
the stranger, should begin to do him despite and deliver frequent
discourses to disparage him and lessen his repute, not hesitating by this
device to leave the church assigned him and remove to that which is

1026

another's — do ye then [in such a case] set a limit of time [for his stay in
the city], because on the one hand to refuse to receive a bishop is
discourteous, and on the other his too long stay is mischievous. Provision
must be made against this. I remember that in a former council our brethren
decreed that if any layman did not attend divine service in a city in which
he was staying three Sundays, that is, for three weeks, he should be
deprived of communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of
laymen, it is far less lawful and fitting that a bishop, if there be no grave
necessity detaining him, should be absent from his church longer than the
time above written.

All said that such was their pleasure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

A bishop when called in by another bishop, if he that called him is
unskilled, must not be too assiduous in preaching, for this would be
indecorous to the unlearned bishop, and an attack upon his bishopric. And
both improper, Without grave necessity it is undesirable for a bishop to be
absent from his church.

This is Canon XIV. of the Latin.

VAN ESPEN

To understand this canon it must be again remembered that in the first ages
of the Church bishops were wont to be appointed at the demand of the
people; wherefore whoever were going around after the episcopate, were
accustomed to solicit the hearts of the people, and to make it their study
to win their affections.

1027

CANON XII

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: Since no case should be left unprovided for, let this
also be decreed. Some of our brethren and fellow-bishops are known to
possess very little private property in the cities in which they are placed
as bishops, but have great possessions in other places, with which they
are, moreover, able to help the poor. I think then permission should be
given them, if they are to visit their estates and attend to the gathering of
the harvest, to pass three Sundays, that is, to stay for three weeks, on
their estates, and to assist at divine worship and celebrate the liturgy in the
nearest church in which, a presbyter holds service, in order that they may
not be seen to be absent from worship, and in order that they may not
come too frequently to the city in which there is a bishop. In this way
their private affairs will suffer no loss from their absence and they will be
seen to be clear from the charge of ambition and arrogance.

All the bishops said: This decree also is approved by us.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Since no case should be left unprovided for [let this
also be decreed]. There are some of our brother-bishops, who do not reside
in the city in which they are appointed bishops, either because they have
but little property there, while they are known to have considerable
estates elsewhere, or, it may be, through affection for kith and kin and in
complaisance to these. Let this much be permitted them, to go to their
estates to superintend and dispose of their harvest, and [for this purpose]
to remain over three Sundays, that is, for three weeks, if it be necessary,
on their estates; or else, if there is a neighboring city in which there is a
presbyter, in order that they may not be seen to pass Sunday without
church, let them go thither, so that fin this way] neither will their private
affairs suffer loss from their absence, nor will they, by frequent going to
the city in which a bishop is resident, incur the suspicion of ambition and
place- seeking. All said that this was approved by them.

1028

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

If a bishop has possessions outside his diocese, and visits them, let him be
careful not to remain there more than three Lord's days. For thus his own
flock will be enriched by him, and he himself will avoid the charge of
arrogance.

This is Canon XV. of the Latin.

VAN ESPEN

As Balsamon notes, this canon is an appendix to that which goes before,
and the context of the canon indicates this clearly enough; for while the
last canon decrees that no bishop is to be absent from his diocese for more
than three Lord's days, without grave necessity, in this canon a certain
modification is introduced with regard to certain bishops.

HEFELE

According to the Latin text of Dionysius, it is: "Some bishops do not
reside in their Cathedral town, etc." Isidore and the Prisca, however, are
nearer the Greek text, as instead of resident they more rightly read
possident.

1029

CANON xm

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. 'If any deacon or
presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with
another bishop who knows him and who is aware final he has been
removed from communion by his own bishop, [that other bishop] must
not offend against his brother bishop by admitting him to communion.
And if any dare to do this, let him know that he must present himself
before an assembly of bishops and give account.

All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and
preserve the concord of all.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If a deacon or
presbyter or any of the clergy be refused communion by his own bishop
and go to another bishop, and he with whom he has taken refuge shall
know that he has been repelled by his own bishop, then must he not grant
him communion. But if he shall do so, let him know that he must give
account before an assembly of bishops.

All said: This decision will preserve peace and maintain concord. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

Whose knowingly admits to communion one excommunicated by his own
bishop is not without blame.

This is Canon XVI. of the Latin.

1030

VAN ESPEN

The present canon agrees with Canon V. of Nice and with Canon IV. of
Antioch, on which canons see the notes. The Synod's approbation of this
canon is found in Dionysius, Isidore, and in the Roman Codex apud
Hervetus; but it is lacking from Balsamon and Zonaras.

1031

CANON xrv

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: I must not fail to speak of a matter which constantly
urgeth me. If a bishop be found quick to anger (which ought not to sway
such a man), and he, suddenly moved against a presbyter or deacon, be
minded to cast him out of the Church, provision must be made that such a
one be not condemned too hastily [or read 6c9(Sov, if innocent] and
deprived of communion.

All said: Let him that is cast out be authorized to take refuge with the
bishop of the metropolis of the same province. And if the bishop of the
metropolis is absent, let him hasten to the bishop that is nearest, and ask
to have his case carefully examined. For a hearing ought not to be denied
those who ask it.

And that bishop who cast out such a one, justly or unjustly, ought not to
take it ill that examination of the case be made, and his decision confirmed
or revised. But, until all the particulars have been examined with care and
fidelity, he who is excluded from communion ought not to demand
communion in advance of the decision of his case. And if any of the clergy
who have met [to hear the case] clearly discern arrogance and
pretentiousness in him, inasmuch as it is not fitting to suffer insolence or
unjust censure, they ought to correct such an one with somewhat harsh
and grievous language, that men may submit to and obey commands that
are proper and right. For as the bishop ought to manifest sincere love and
regard to his subordinates, so those who are subject to him ought in like
manner to perform the duties of their ministry in sincerity towards their
bishops.

(Latin.)

Bishop Ho s iu s said: I must not fail to speak of a matter which further
moveth me. If some bishop is perchance quick to anger (which ought not
to be the case) and, moved hastily and violently against one of his
presbyters or deacons, be minded to cast him out of the Church, provision

1032

must be made that an innocent man be not condemned or deprived of
communion.

Therefore let him that is cast out be authorized to appeal to the
neighboring bishops and let his case be heard and examined into more
diligently. For a hearing ought not to be denied one who asks it.

And let that bishop who cast him out, justly or unjustly, take it patiently
that the matter is discussed, so that his sentence may either be approved
by a number judges] or else revised. Nevertheless, until all the particulars
shall be examined with care and fidelity, no one else ought to presume to
admit to communion him who was excluded therefrom in advance of the
decision of his case. If, however, those who meet to hear it observe
arrogance and pride in [such] clergy, inasmuch as it surely is not fitting for
a bishop to suffer wrong or insult, let them correct them with some
severity of language, that they may obey a bishop whose commands are
proper and right. For as he [the bishop] ought to manifest sincere love and
charity to his clergy, so his ministers ought for their part to render
unfeigned obedience to their bishop.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

One condemned out of anger, if he asks for assistance, should be heard.
But until [he shall have asked for] the assistance let him remain
excommunicated.

This is Canon XVII. of the Latin version.

VAN ESPEN

This canon is intended especially to aid presbyters, deacons, and other
clerics, who have been excommunicated precipitately and without just
cause, or suspended by their own bishop in his anger and fury.... The

1033

canon, moreover, admonishes that the bishop with regard to whose
sentence the dispute has arisen shall patiently consent to the discussion of
the matter de novo, whether his decision be sustained by the majority or
emended.

And let bishops and other prelates who have spiritual jurisdiction over the
clergy note this, who cannot bear with equanimity that a word should be
said against their decisions, but exact a kind of blind obedience, even
frequently with great conscientious suffering to their very best
ecclesiastics; and in such cases as do not promptly and blindly obey them,
the clergy are traduced as rebels and even a patient hearing is refused to
them.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P.
II., Causa XL, Q. iij., c. iv.

[AFTER CANON XIV.]

1034

CANON XVIII. (Of the Latin.)

Bishop Januarius said: Let your holiness also decree this, that no bishop
be allowed to try to gain for himself a minister in the church of a bishop of
another city and ordain him to one of his own parishes.

All said: Such is our pleasure, inasmuch as discord is apt to spring from
contentions in this matter, and therefore the sentence of us all forbids
anyone to presume to do

NOTE.

VAN ESPEN

It is manifest that these two canons [xviii. of the Latin and 15:of the
Greek], contain the resolution of the same case, and therefore it is that the
Greeks keep only the former which contains the decree of the synod, made
on Hosius's motion, the suggestion having been made by Januarius the
bishop: which suggestion makes the first of these canons. [I.e. Latin canon
xviij.]

1035

CANON XV

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: And let us all decree this also, that if any bishop
should ordain to any order the minister of another from another diocese
without the consent of his own bishop, such an ordination should be
accounted invalid and not confirmed. And if any take upon themselves to
do this they ought to be admonished and corrected by our brethren and
fellow-bishops.

All said: Let this decree also stand unalterable.

(Latin.)

Bishop Hosius said: This also we all decree, that if any [bishop] should
ordain the minister of another from another diocese without the consent
and will of his own bishop, his ordination be not ratified. And whoever
shall have taken upon himself to do this ought to be admonished and
corrected by our brethren and fellow-bishops.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

If one places a foreign minister without the knowledge of his own bishop in
any grade (ejxPoc9jj,ov in aliquo gradu), he has indeed made the
appointment, but it is without force.

This is Canon XIX. in the Latin.

1036

HEFELE

Fuchs, in his Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (Pt. II., p. 123, note
125), thinks he has discovered a difference between this canon and the
exclusively Latin one preceding it, in that the latter supposes the case of a
bishop ordaining a foreign cleric, over whom he has no jurisdiction, to a
higher grade, with the view of retaining him for his own diocese; while the
other — fifteenth or nineteenth canon — treats of a case where such an
ordination takes place without the ordaining bishop intending to keep the
person ordained for his own diocese. Van Espen is of another opinion, and
maintains that both canons obviously refer to one and the same case, for
which reason the Greek text has only inserted one of them. It is certain
that the text of both canons, as we have it, does not clearly indicate the
difference conjectured by Fuchs, but that it may easily be found there.

VAN ESPEN

If the reading of all the Latins and Greeks is decisive, this canon only
treats of the ordination of those already ministers or clerics, and so the
Greek commentators Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus understood it, as
is evident from their annotations. But Gratus, Bishop of Carthage, and
Primate of Africa, in the First Synod of Carthage testified that in this
canon it was decreed, that without the license of his own bishop, a layman
of another diocese was not to be ordained, and this interpretation or rather
extension of the Canon, was received everywhere, as is demonstrated by
the fifty-sixth of the African Code.

This together with Canon XIX. of the Latin text are found as one in the
Corpus Juris Canonici (Gratian's Decretum, P. I., Dist. lxxj.), c. j.

1037

CANON XVI

(Greek.)

Bishop Aetius said: Ye are not ignorant how important and how large is
the metropolitan city of Thessalonica. Accordingly presbyters and
deacons often come to it from other provinces and, not content with
staying a short time, remain and make it their permanent place of
residence, or are compelled with difficulty and after a very long delay to
return to their own churches. A decree should be made bearing on this
matter.

Bishop Ho s iu s said: Let those decrees which have been made in the case
of bishops, be observed as to these persons also.

(Latin.)

Bishop Aetius said: Ye are not ignorant how large and important is the
city of Thessalonica. Presbyters and deacons often come to it from other
regions, and are not content to remain a short time, but either make their
residence there or at least are with difficulty compelled to return after a
long interval to their own place.

All said: Those limits of time which have been decreed in the case of
bishops ought to be observed as to these persons also.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

What things have been decreed for bishops with regard to the length of
their absence, applies also to presbyters and deacons.

1038
VAN ESPEN

This canon needs no explanation.

1039

CANON XVII.

(Greek.)

At the suggestion moreover of our brother Olympius, we are pleased to
decree this also: That if a bishop suffer violence and is unjustly cast out
either on account of his discipline or for his confession of [the faith of] the
Catholic Church or for his defense of the truth, and, fleeing from danger,
although innocent and devout [or, innocent and being under charge of high
treason], comes to another city, let him not be forbidden to stay there until
he is restored or until deliverance can be found from the violence and
injustice that have been done him. For it would be harsh indeed and most
oppressive that one who has suffered unjust expulsion should not be
harbored by us; as such a man ought to be received with the greatest
consideration and cordiality.*

All said: This also is our pleasure.

(Latin.)

At the suggestion of our brother Olympius, we are pleased to decree this
also: That if any suffer violence and is unjustly cast out on account of his
discipline and his Catholic confession or for his defense of the truth, and,
fleeing from dangers, although innocent and devout, comes to another city,
let him not be forbidden to stay there until he can return or his wrong has
been redressed. For it is harsh and unfeeling that he who is suffering
persecution should not be received; indeed, great cordiality and abundant
consideration should be shown him.

All the synod said: All that has been decreed the Catholic Church spread
abroad throughout all the world will preserve and maintain.

And all the bishops of the various provinces who had assembled
subscribed thus:

I, N., bishop of the city of N. and the province of N., so believe as above
is written.

1040

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

If a bishop goes into another province after he has been unjustly expelled
from his own, he should be received, until he has been delivered from his
injury.

This is Canon XXI. of the Latin and the last.

VAN ESPEN

St. Gregory seems to have had this canon in mind when he wrote to the
bishops of Illyria (Lib. III., Epist. xliij.), who had been cast out by the
hostility of the barbarians.

1041

CANON xvm

(Greek.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: Thou knowest, brother Aetius, that since thou
wast made bishop, peace hath continued to rule [in thy diocese]. In order
that no remnants of discord concerning ecclesiastics remain, it seems good
that those who were ordained by Musaeus and by Eutychianus, provided
no fault be found in them, should all be received.

(This canon is wanting in the Latin.)

1042

CANON XIX

(Greek.)

Bishop Hosius said: This is the sentence of my mediocrity [i.e.,
unworthiness] — that, since we ought to be gentle and patient and to be
constant in compassion towards all, those who were once advanced to
clerical office in the Church by certain of our brethren, if they are not
willing to return to the churches to which they were nominated [or,
espoused], should for the future not be received, and that neither
Eutychianus should continue to vindicate to himself the name of bishop,
nor yet that Musaeus be accounted a bishop; but that if they should seek
for lay communion, it should not be denied them.

All said: Such is our pleasure.

(This canon is wanting in the Latin.)

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XVIII. AND XIX

A clergyman who does not live in the Church among whose clergy he is
enrolled should not be received. Eutychian and Musoeus shall not have the
name of bishops. But let them be admitted to communion with the laity, if
they wish.

Both of these canons are lacking in the Latin.

HEFELE

1043

It is clear that the reason why these two canons do not exist in the Latin
text is that they did not apply to the Latin Church and only contained a
special rule for Thessalonica.

1044

CANON XX

(Greek.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: These things wholesomely, duly, and filly
decreed, in the estimation of us the bishops [tcov lepecov] such as are
pleasing both to God and to man will not be able to obtain due force and
validity, unless fear [of a penalty] be added to the decrees proclaimed. For
we ourselves know that through the shamelessness of a few, the divine and
right reverend title of bishop [of the i;f|<; iepcooijvr|<;] hath often come into
condemnation. If therefore any one, moved by arrogance and ambition
rather than seeking to please God, should have the hardihood to pursue a
different course of action, contrary to the decree of all, let him know
beforehand that he must give account and defend himself on this charge,
and lose the honor and dignity of the episcopate.

All answered: This sentence is proper and right, and such is our pleasure.

And this decree will be most widely known and best carried into effect, if
each of those bishops among us who have sees on the thoroughfares or
highway, on seeing a bishop [pass by] shall inquire into the cause of his
passage and his place of destination. And if at his departure he shall find
that he is going to the Court, he will direct his inquiries with reference to
the objects [of a resort to the Court] above mentioned. And if he come by
invitation let no obstacle be put in the way of his departure. But if he is
trying to go to the Court out of ostentation, as hath afore been said by
your charity, or to urge the petitions of certain persons, let neither his
letters be signed nor let such an one be received to communion.

All said: Be this also decreed

(Latin.)

Bishop Gaudentius said: These things which you have wholesomely and
suitably provided [in your decrees] pleasing in [or, to] the estimation of all
both [or, and] to God and to men, can obtain force and validity only in
case fear [of a penalty] be added to this your action. For we ourselves

1045

know that through the shamelessness of a few the sacred and venerable
sacerdotal [ — episcopal] name hath been many times and oft brought to
blame. If therefore anyone attempts to oppose the judgment of all and
seeks to serve ambition rather than please God, he must be given to know
that he will have to render an account and lose office and rank.

This can be carried into effect only provided each of us whose see is on
the highway shall, if he sees a bishop pass, inquire into the cause of his
journey, ascertain his destination, and if he finds that he is on his way to
the Court, satisfy himself as to what is contained above [i.e., as to his
objects at Court], lest perhaps he has come by invitation, that permission
may be given him to proceed. If, however, as your holiness mentioned
above, he is going to Court to urge petitions and applications for office, let
neither his letters be signed nor let him be received to communion.

All said that this was proper and right and that this regulation was
approved by them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX. [the last part of which in
Beveridge, Synod., is numbered xxj.]

If any bishop tries out of pride to do away with what has been decreed
admirably, and in a manner pleasing to God, he shall lose his episcopate.
A bishop who shall see a bishop on his way to the camp, if he shall know
that he goes therefor any of the before-mentioned causes, let him not
trouble him, but if otherwise let him pronounce excommunication against
him.

This is Canon XL of the Latin.

VAN ESPEN

After the words ["honor and dignity"] according to Balsamon and
Zonaras, as also Gentian Hervetus, there follows the approbation of the

1046

synod in these words: "All answered, This opinion is becoming and
well-pleasing to us," which indicate this to be the end of the canon; and
therefore the Greeks make of this two distinct canons.

Dionysius and Isidore make but one canon,... and this appears to be more
congruous on account of the subject-matter of the first part, and will be
manifest by connecting the two parts together.

Van Espen follows Zonaras and Balsamon in understanding "Bishops in
Canali," as such as were set on the public roads and public highways, or
rather "in cities which are on the public highways, or 'Canals,' by which
they that pass go without labor, as in a canal or aqueduct the water flows,
for aqueduct and canal are the same thing in the Roman tongue."

[AFTER CANON XX.]

1047

CANON XII. (Of the Latin Texts.)

Bishop Hosius said: But some discretion is here requisite, brethren dearly
beloved, in case some should come to those cities which are on the
highway still ignorant of what has been decreed in the council. The bishop
of such a city ought therefore to admonish him [a bishop so arriving], and
instruct him to send his deacon from that place. Upon this admonition he
must, however, himself return to his diocese.

NOTES

VAN ESPEN

This proposition of Hosius in the Roman Codex is joined as an appendix
to the preceding canon. The Greeks omit it altogether, very likely either
because it seemed to be a proposition of Hosius' s rather than a synodal
canon, for no adoption by the synod is recorded: or else because, even if it
were a decree, it was only of temporary character, that is to say, until the
canons had been sufficiently promulgated, and therefore some on the
ground of ignorance might be exempt from the threatened penalties.

1048

EXCURSUS ON THE OTHER ACTS OF THE COUNCIL

As only the Canons have any real connection with the Ecumenical Synods,
they alone have properly a place in this volume, and yet it may not be
amiss to give a brief account of the other acts of the council, so far as we
know them.

(a) The Rule for Keeping Easter. — The Anglican Scholar, the Rev.
William Cureton, of the British Museum, first edited the then recently
discovered Preface to the Paschal Letters of St. Athanasius, together with
the Letters themselves. The MS. which he then published was in Syriac
and was discovered in Egypt. In the preface just referred to, it is expressly
stated that "a plan was agreed upon at Sardica with regard to the feast of
Easter." But this new plan, which was only expected to hold good for fifty
years, failed, and although in A.D. 346 Easter should have fallen on March
23d, yet the Council (so says St. Athanasius) agreed to observe it on
March 30th. Another divergence fell in A.D. 349. Easter, by the
Alexandrian calculation, would have been April 23d. But by Roman count,
the origin of which was attributed to St. Peter, Easter was never to be later
than April 21st, and for the sake of peace the Alexandrians yielded to the
Romans and kept Easter on March 26th; but in 350, 360, and 368 the
Alexandrian and Roman methods again disagreed, and even the fifty years
which Sardica had thought to ensure uniformity were marked by diverse
usages.

(b) The Encyclical Letter. — The Council addressed a long Encyclical letter
to all the bishops of the world; it is found in St. Athanasius in Greek, in
St. Hilary of Poictiers in Latin, and in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History.
In this last there occurs at the end the so-called "Creed of Sardica," which
is now considered by scholars to be undoubtedly spurious.

(c) A Letter to the Diocese of Alexandria. — St. Athanasius gives us the
Greek text of a letter sent by the council to the diocese of Alexandria to
the bishops of Egypt and Libya.

(d) A Letter to Pope Julius. — Among the Fragments of St. Hilary is found
a letter from the synod to Pope Julius. Hefele says that the text is
"considerably injured." One clause of this letter above all others has given

1049

occasion to much controversy. The passage runs as follows: "It was best
and fittest that the priests [i.e., bishops] from all the provinces should
make their reports to the head, that is, the chair of St. Peter." Blondell
declares the passage to be an interpolation, resting his opinion upon the
barbarous Latin of the expression valde congruentissimum. And even Remi
Ceillier, while explaining this by the supposition, which is wholly
gratuitous, that the original was Greek, yet is forced to confess that the
sentence interrupts the flow of thought and looks like an insertion. Bower,
in his History of the Popes, and Fuchs have urged still more strongly the
spurious character of the phrase, the latter using the convenient "marginal
comment" explanation.

Besides these there are three documents which Scipio Maffei discovered in
MS. at Verona, which by some are supposed to belong to the Council of
Sardica.

(a) A Letter to the Christians of Mareotis.

(b) A Letter of St. Athanasius to the same Mareotic Churches. This letter
is signed not only by Athanasius, but also by a great number of the
bishops composing the synod.

(c) A Letter from St. Athanasius to the Church of Alexandria.

On the authority to be attributed to these three documents I can do no
better than quote the closing words of Hefele, whom I have followed in
this whole excursus.

"These extracts shew, I think, quite sufficiently the spuriousness of these
documents. Is it possible that the Eusebians would have said of
themselves: 'We are enemies of Christ?' But apart from this, the whole
contents of these three letters are lame and feeble. The constant repetition
of the same words is intolerable, and the whole style pointless and trivial.
To this it must be added that the whole of Christian antiquity knew
nothing of these three documents, which only exist in the codex at Verona,
so that we cannot acknowledge them as genuine."

1050

EXCURSUS AS TO WHETHER THE SARDICAN COUNCIL WAS

ECUMENICAL.

Some theologians and canonists have been of opinion that the Council of
Sardica was Ecumenical and would reckon it as the Second. But besides the
fact that such a numbering is absolutely in contrariety to all history it also
labors under the difficulty, as we shall see presently, that the Westerns by
insisting that St. Athanasius should have a seat caused a division of the
synod at the very outset, so that the Easterns met at Philippopolis and
confirmed the deposition of the Saint. It is also interesting to remember
that when Alexander Natalis in his history expressly called this synod
ecumenical, the passage was marked with disapproval by the Roman
censors.

(Hefele. Hist. Councils. Vol. II., pp. 172 et seqq.)

The ecumenical character of this Synod certainly cannot be proved. It is
indeed true that it was the design of Pope Julius, as well as of the two
Emperors, Constantius and Constans, to summon a General Council at
Sardica; but we do not find that any such actually took place: and the
history of the Church points to many like cases, where a synod was
probably intended to be ecumenical, and yet did not attain that character.
In the present case, the Eastern and Western bishops were indeed
summoned, but by far the greater number of the Eastern bishops were
Eusebians, and therefore Semi-Arians, and instead of acting in a better
mind in union with the orthodox, they separated themselves and formed a
cabal of their own at Philippopolis.

We cannot indeed agree with those who maintain that the departure of the
Eusebians in itself rendered it impossible for the synod to be ecumenical,
or it would be in the power of heretics to make an Ecumenical Council
possible or not. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, in
consequence of this withdrawal, the great Eastern Church was far more
poorly represented at Sardica, and that the entire number of bishops
present did not even amount to a hundred! So small a number of bishops
can only form a General Council if the great body of their absent

1051

colleagues subsequently give their express consent to what has been
decided. This was not, however, the case at the Synod of Sardica. The
decrees were no doubt at once sent for acceptance and signature to the
whole of Christendom, but not more than about two hundred of those
bishops who had been absent signed, and of these, ninety-four, or nearly
half, were Egyptians. Out of the whole of Asia only a few bishops from
the provinces of Cyprus and Palestine signed, not one from the other
Eastern provinces; and even from the Latin Church in Africa, which at that
time numbered at least three hundred bishops, we meet with very few
names. We cannot give much weight to the fact that the Emperor
Constantius refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica: it is of much
greater importance that no single later authority declared it to be a General
Council. Natalis Alexander is indeed of opinion that because Pope
Zosimus, in the year 417 or 418, cited the fifth canon of Sardica as Nicene,
and a synod held at Constantinople in 382 cited the sixth as Nicene, the
synod must evidently have been considered as an appendix to that of
Nicea, and therefore its equal, that is, must have been honored as
ecumenical. But we have already shown how Zosimus and the bishops of
Constantinople had been led into this confusion from the defects of their
manuscript collections of the canons. Athanasius, Sulpicius Severus,
Socrates, and the Emperor Justinian were cited in later times for the
ecumenical character of this synod. Athanasius calls it a \ieyaXr\ auvoSoc;;
Sulpicius Severus says it was ex toto orbe convocata; and Socrates relates
that "Athanasius and other bishops had demanded an Ecumenical Synod,
and that of Sardica had been then summoned. It is clear at the first glance
that the two last authorities only prove that the Synod had been intended
to be a general one, and the expression "Great Synod," used by
Athanasius, cannot be taken as simply identical with ecumenical. While,
however, the Emperor Justinian, in his edict of 346, on the Three
Chapters, calls the Synod of Sardica ecumenical, he yet, in the same edict,
as well as in other places, does not reckon it among the General Councils,
of which he counts four. To this must be added, first, that the Emperor is
not the authority entitled to decide as to the character of an Ecumenical
Synod; and secondly, that the expression Universale Concilium was
employed in a wider sense in speaking of those synods which, without
being general, represented a whole patriarchate.

1052

The Trullan Synod and Pope Nicholas I. are further appealed to. The
former in its second canon approved of the Sardican canons, and Pope
Nicholas said of them: "omnis Ecclesia recepit eos." But this in no way
contains a declaration that the Synod of Sardica was ecumenical, for the
canons of many other councils also — for instance, Ancyra, Neocaesarea,
and others — were generally received without those synods themselves
being therefore esteemed ecumenical. Nay, the Trullan Synod itself speaks
for us; for had it held the Synod of Sardica to be the second General
Council, it would have placed its canons immediately after those of Nice,
whereas they are placed after the four ancient General Councils, and from
this we see that the Trullan Synod did not reckon the Sardican among
those councils, but after them. To this it must be added that the highest
Church authorities speak most decidedly against the synod being
ecumenical. We may appeal first to Augustine, who only knew of the
Eusebian assembly at Sardica, and nothing at all of an orthodox synod in
that place; which would have been clearly impossible, if it had at that time
been counted among the ecumenical synods. Pope Gregory the Great and
St. Isidore of Seville speak still more plainly. They only know of four
ancient General Councils — those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and
Chalcedon. The objection of the Ballerini that Gregory and Isidore did not
intend to enumerate the most ancient general synods as such, but only
those which issued important dogmatic decrees, is plainly quite arbitrary,
and therefore wittiest force. Under such circumstances it is natural that
among the later scholars by far the great majority should have answered
the question, whether the Synod of Sardica is ecumenical, in the negative,
as have Cardinal Bellarmin, Peter de Marca, Edmund Richer, Fleury, Orsi,
Sacharelli, Tillemont, Du Pin, Berti, Ruttenstock, Rohrbacher, Remi
Ceillier, Stolberg, Neander, and others. On the other hand, Baronius,
Natalis Alexander, the brothers Ballerini, Mansi, and Palma have sought to
maintain the ecumenical character of the synod, but as early as the
seventeenth century the Roman censors condemned the direct assertions
of Natalis Alexander on the subject.

1053

THE CANONS OF THE CCXVII BLESSED FATHERS
WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE

COMMONLY CALLED

THE CODE OF CANONS OF THE AFRICAN

CHURCH

A.D. 419

Elenchus.

Introductory Note.

The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

An attempt to write a commentary upon all the canons of the African
Code, would have meant nothing less than the preparation of one volume
or more on the canon law of the West. This is impossible and therefore,
interesting as the field would be, I have been compelled to restrain my pen,
and rather than give a scant and insufficient annotation, I have contented
myself with providing the reader with as good a translation as I have been
able to make of the very corrupt Latin (correcting it at times by the
Greek), and have added the Ancient Epitome and the quaint notes in full of
John Johnson from the Second Edition, of 1714, of his "Clergyman's
Vade-mecum," Pt. II., which occupy little space, but may not be easily
reached by the ordinary reader. The student will find full scholia on these
Canons in Van Espen in the Latin, and in Zonaras and Balsamon in the
Greek. These latter are in Beveridge's Synodicon.

1054

Johnson writes an excellent Introduction to his Epitome of these Canons,
as follows:

"Councils were nowhere more frequently called in the Primitive Times
than in Africa. In the year 418-19, all canons formerly made in sixteen
councils held at Carthage, one at Milevis, one at Hippo, that were
approved of, were read, and received a new sanction from a great number
of bishops, then met in synod at Carthage. This Collection is the Code of
the African Church, which was always in greatest repute in all Churches
next after the Code of the Universal Church. This code was of very great
authority in the old English Churches, for many of the Excerptions of
Egbert were transcribed from it. And though the Code of the Universal
Church ends with the canons of Chalcedon, yet these African Canons are
inserted into the Ancient Code both of the Eastern and Western Churches.
These canons though ratified and approved by a synod, yet seem to have
been divided or numbered by some private and unlearned hand, and have
probably met with very unskillful transcribers, by which means some of
them are much confounded and obscured, as to their sense and coherence.
They are by Dionysius Exiguus and others entitled The Canons of the
Synod of Africa. And though all were not originally made at one time, yet
they were all confirmed by one synod of African bishops, who, after they
had recited the Creed and the twenty canons of the Council of Nice,
proceeded to make new canons, and re-enforce old ones."

In his "Library of Canon Law" (Bibliotheca Juris Canonici) Justellus gives
these canons, and, in my opinion, gives them rightly, the title "The Code
of Canons of the African Church" {Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Africanoe),
although Hefele describes them as "the collection of those African Canons
put together in 419 by Dionysius Exiguus." Hefele says that the title
Dionysius gave them in his collection was "The Statutes of an African
Council" (Statuta Concilii Africani) which would certainly be wholly
inadequate and misleading; but in the edition of Dionysius in Migne's
Patrologia Latina (Tom. LXVIL, col. 181) in the Codex Canonum
Ecclesiasticorum no such title occurs, but the perfectly accurate one, "A
Synod at Carthage in Africa, which adopted one hundred and thirty-eight
canons." This is an exact description of what took place and of the origin
of these most important dogmatic and disciplinary enactments. Hefele

1055

must have been thinking of Dionysius's Preface where the expression does
occur but not as a title.

(Beveridge. Synodicon, Tom. II., p. 202.)

Carthage was formerly the head of the whole of Africa, as St. Augustine
tells us in his Epistle CLXII. From this cause it happened that a great
number of councils were held there, gathered from all the provinces of
Africa. Especially while Aurelius as Archbishop was occupying the throne
were these meetings of bishops frequently holden; and by these, for the
establishing of ecclesiastical discipline in Africa, many canons were
enacted. At last, after the consulate of Honorius (XII.) and Theodosius
(VIIL), Augustuses, on the eighth day before the Calends of June, that is
to say, on May 25, in the year of our Lord 419, another Council was held
in the same city at which all the canons previously adopted were
considered, and the greater part of them were again confirmed by the
authority of the synod. These canons, thus confirmed by this council,
merited to be called from that day to this "The Code of Canons of the
African Church." These canons were not at first adopted in Greek but in
Latin, and they were confirmed in the same language. This Dionysius
Exiguus distinctly testifies to in his preface to the "Code of Ecclesiastical
Canons," in which they are included. It is uncertain when the canons of
this Carthaginian synod were done into Greek. This only is certain, that
they had been translated into Greek before the Council in Trullo by which,
in its Second Canon, they were received into the Greek Nomocanon, and
were confirmed by the authority of this synod; so that from that time
these canons stand in the Eastern Church on an equality with all the rest.

An extremely interesting point arises as to what was the authority of the
collection as a collection, and how this collection was made? There seems
no doubt that the collection substantially as we know it was the code
accepted by the Council of Trullo, the canons of which received a
quasi-ecumenical authority from the subsequent general imprimatur given
them by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second of Nice. Van Espen
has considered this point at great length in Dissertation VIIL of the First
Part of his Commentaries, and to his pages I must refer the reader for
anything like an adequate presentation of the matter. He concludes (I.) that
the "Code owes its origin to this synod," and argues against De Marca in

1056

proof of the proposition that the collection was not the private work of
Dionysius, but the official work of the council by one of its officials,
concluding with the remark (II.) that "this was the persuasion both of
Greeks and Latins,... and these canons are set forth by Balsamon with the
title, 'The Canons of the CCXVII. Blessed Fathers who met together at
Carthage.

5 ■■ ~

In the notes on each canon I shall give the source, following Hefele in all
respects (Hist, of the Councils, vol. il., pp. 468 et seqq.), and content
myself here with setting down a list of the various councils which made
the enactments, with their dates.

Carthage (under Gratus) 345-348

(under Genethlius) 387 or 390

Hippo 393

I. Carthage 394

II. " (June 26) 397

III. " (August 28) 397

IV. " (April 27) 399

V. " (June 15) 401

VI. " (September 13) 401

VII. Milevis (August 27) 402

VIII. Carthage (August 25) 403

IX. " (June) 404

X. " (August 25) 405

XL " (June 13) 407

XII. and XIII. Carthage (June 16 and October 13 408 A.D.

XIV. Carthage (June 15) 409

XV. " (June 14) 410

XVI. " (May 1) 418

XVII. " (May 25) which adopted the African Code.. 419

The numbering of the African councils differs very widely between the
different writers, and Cave reckons nine between 401 and 608, and
thirty-five Carthaginian between 215 and 533. Very useful tables, shewing
the conclusions of Fuchs, are found at the end of Brans, Canones
Apostolorum et Conciliorum Veterum Selecti.

1057

I need only add that I have frequently used Dr. Bruns's text, but have not
confined myself to it exclusively. Evidently in the Latin, as we now have
it, there are many corrupt passages. In strange contradistinction to this,
the Greek is apparently pure and is clear throughout. Possibly the Greek
translation was made from a purer Latin text than we now possess.

AN ANCIENT INTRODUCTION.

{Found in Dionysius Exiguus, Codex Can. Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. lxvii.,
col. 182.)

After the consulate of the most glorious emperors, Honorus for the
twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth time, Augustuses, on the VIII.
before the Calends of June at Carthage, in the Secretarium of the basilica of
Faustus, when Pope Aurelius had sat down, together with Valentine of the
primatial see of the province of Numidia, and Faustinus of the Potentine
Church, of the Italian province Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church,
and also with legates of the different African provinces, that is to say, of
the two Numidias, of Byzacena, of Mauritania Caesariensis, as well as of
Tripoli, and with Vincent Colositanus, Fortunatian, and other bishops of
the proconsular province, in all two hundred and seventeen, also with
Philip and Asellus, presbyters and legates of the Roman Church, and while
the deacons were standing by, Aurelius the bishop said, etc., ut infra.

1058

THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS
WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE

(Labbe and Cossart: Concilia, Tom. II. Col. 1041; Dionysius Exodus
Codex Can. Eccles. [Migne, Pat. Lat, Tom. LXVII.]; Beveridge,
Synodicon in lot.)

Aurelius The Bishop said: You, most blessed brethren, remember that
after the day fixed for the synod we discussed many things while we were
waiting for our brethren who now have been sent as delegates and have
arrived at the present synod, which must be placed in the acts. Wherefore
let us render thanks to our Lord for the gathering together of so great an
assembly. It remains that the acts of the Nicene Synod which we now
have, and have been determined by the fathers, as well as those things
enacted by our predecessors here, who confirmed that same Synod, or
which according to the same form have been usefully enacted by all grades
of the clergy, from the highest even to the lowest, should be brought
forward. The whole Council said: Let them be brought forward.

Daniel the Notary read: The profession of faith or statutes of the Nicene
Synod are as follows.

And while he was speaking, Faustinus, a bishop of the people of Potentia,
of the Italian province of Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church said:
There have been entrusted to us by the Apostolic See certain things in
writings, and certain other things as in ordinances to be treated of with
your blessedness as we have called to memory in the acts above, that is to
say, concerning the canons made at Nice, that their decrees and customs be
observed; for some things are observed out of decree and canon, but some
from custom. Concerning these things therefore in the first place let us
make enquiry, if it please your blessedness; and afterwards let the other
ordinances which have been adopted or proposed be confirmed; so that
you may be able to show by your rescripts to the Apostolic See, and that
you may declare to the same venerable Pope, that we have diligently
remembered these things; although the headings of action taken had been

1059

already inserted in the acts. In this matter we should act, as I have said
above, as shall please your beloved blessedness. Let, therefore the
commonitorium come into the midst, that ye may be able to recognize
what is contained in it, so that an answer can be given to each point.

Aurelius said: Let the commonitorium be brought forward, which our
brethren and fellow-ministers lately placed in the acts, and let the rest of
the things done or to be done, follow in order.

Daniel the Notary read the Commonitorium. To our brother Faustinus and
to our sons, the presbyters Philip and Asellus, Zosimus, the bishop. You
well remember that we committed to you certain businesses, and now [we
bid you] carry out all things as if we ourselves were there (for), indeed, our
presence is there with you; especially since ye have this our
commandment, and the words of the canons which for greater certainty we
have inserted in this our commonitory. For thus said our brethren in the
Council of Nice when they made these decrees concerning the appeals of
bishops:

"But it seemed good that if a bishop had been accused, etc." [Here follows
verbatim Canon 5:ofSardica.]

ANCIENT EPITOME.

If bishops shall have deposed a bishop, and if he appeal to the Roman
bishop, he should be benignantly heard, the Roman bishop writing or
ordering.

And when this had been read, Alypius, bishop of the Tagastine Church,
and legate of the province of Numidia, said: On this matter there has been
some legislation in former sessions of our council, and we profess that we
shall ever observe what was decreed by the Nicene Council; yet I
remember that when we examined the Greek copies of this Nicene Synod,
we did not find these the words quoted — Why this was the case, I am
sure I do not know. For this reason we beg your reverence, holy Pope
Aurelius, that, as the authentic record of the decrees of the Council of Nice
are said to be preserved in the city of Constantinople, you would deign to
send messengers with letters from your Holiness, and not only to our

1060

most holy brother the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable
bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who shall send to us the decrees of
that council with the authentification of their signatures, so that hereafter
all ambiguity should be taken away, for we failed to find the words cited
by our brother Faustinus; notwithstanding this however we promise to be
ruled by them for a short time, as I have already said, until reliable copies
come to hand. Moreover the venerable bishop of the Roman Church,
Boniface, should be asked likewise to be good enough to send messengers
to the aforementioned churches, who should have the same copies
according to his rescript, but the copies of the aforementioned Nicene
Council which we have, we place in these Acts.

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: Let not your
holiness do dishonor to the Roman Church, either in this matter or in any
other, by saying the canons are doubtful, as our brother and fellow-bishop
Alypius has vouchsafed to say: but do you deign to write these things to
our holy and most blessed pope, so that he seeking out the genuine
canons, can treat with your holiness on all matters decreed. But it suffices
that the most blessed bishop of the city of Rome should make enquiry just
as your holiness proposes doing on your part, that there may not seem to
have arisen any contention between the Churches, but that ye may the
rather be enabled to deliberate with fraternal charity, when he has been
heard from, what is best should be observed.

Aurelius the bishop said: In addition to what is set down in the acts, we,
by the letters from our insignificance, must more fully inform our holy
brother and fellow-bishop Boniface of everything which we have
considered. Therefore if our plan pleases all, let us be informed of this by
the mouth of all. And the whole council said: It seems good to us.

Novatus the bishop, legate of Mauritania Sitifensis, said: We now call to
mind that there is contained in this commonitory something about
presbyters and deacons, how they should be tried by their own bishops or
by those adjoining, a provision which we find nothing of in the Nicene
Council. For this cause let your holiness order this part to be read.

Aurelius the bishop said: Let the place asked for be read. Daniel the notary
read as follows: Concerning the appeals of clergymen, that is of those of

1061

inferior rank, there is a sure answer of this very synod, concerning which
thing what ye should do, we think should be inserted, as follows:

"Hosius the bishop said: I should not conceal what has come into my
mind up to this time. If any bishop perchance has been quickly angered (a
thing what should not happen) and has acted quickly or sharply against a
presbyter or a deacon of his, and has wished to drive him out of the
Church, provision should be made that the innocent be not condemned, or
be deprived of communion: he that has been ejected should have the right
of appeal to the bishops of the bordering dioceses, that his case should be
heard, and it should be carried on all the more diligently because to him
who asks a hearing it should not be denied. And the bishop who either
justly or unjustly rejected him, should patiently allow the affair to be,
discussed, so that his sentence be either approved or else emended, etc."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME.

A presbyter or deacon who has been cut off, has the privilege of appealing
to the neighboring bishops. Moreover, he who cut him off should bear with
equanimity the conclusion arrived at.

This is the first part of Canon 14:of Sardica, as the canon previously
quoted is Canon 5:of the same synod. And when this had been read,
Augustine, the bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia,
said: We promise that this shall be observed by us, provided that upon
more careful examination it be found to be of the Council of Nice. Aurelius
the bishop said. If this also is pleasing to the charity of you all, give it the
confirmation of your vote. The whole Council said: Everything that has
been ordained by the Nicene Council pleases us all. Jocundus, the bishop
of the Church of Suffitula, legate of the province of Byzacena, said: What
was decreed by the Nicene Council cannot in any particular be violated.

1062

Faustinus the bishop, legate of the Roman Church, said: So far as has
developed by the confession of your holiness as well as of the holy
Alypius, and of our brother Jocundus, I believe that some of the points
have been made weak and others confirmed, which should not be the case,
since even the very canons themselves have been brought into question.
Therefore, that there may be harmony between us and your blessedness,
let your holiness deign to refer the matter to the holy and venerable bishop
of the Roman Church, that he may be able to consider whether what St.
Augustine vouchsafed to enact, should be conceded or not, I mean in the
matter of appeals of the inferior grade. If therefore there still is doubt, on
this head it is right that the bishop of the most blessed see be informed, if
this can be found in the canons which have been approved.

ANCIENT EPITOME.

Since the written decrees of the Nicene Council have not been found, let the
Roman bishop deign to write to the bishop of Constantinople and to him of
Alexandria, and let us know what he receives from them.

Aurelius the bishop said: As we have suggested to your charity, pray
allow the copies of the statutes of the Nicene Council to be read and
inserted in the acts, as well as those things what have been most
healthfully defined in this city by our predecessors, according to the rule
of that council, and those which now have been ordained by us. And the
whole council said: The copies of the Creed, and the statutes of the Nicene
Synod which formerly were brought to our council through Caecilean of
blessed memory, the predecessor of your holiness (who was present at it),
as well as the copies of the decrees made by the Fathers in this city
following them, or which now we have decreed by our common
consultation, shall remain inserted in these ecclesiastical acts, so that (as
has been already said) your blessedness may vouchsafe to write to those
most venerable men of the Church of Antioch, and of that of Alexandria,
and also of that of Constantinople, that they would send most accurate
copies of the decrees of the Council of Nice under the authentification of
their signatures, by which, the truth of the matter having become evident,
those chapters which in the commonitory our brother who is present, and

1063

fellow-bishop Faustinus, as well as our fellow-presbyters Philip and
Asellus brought with them, if they be found therein, may be confirmed by
us; or if they be not found, we will hold a synod and consider the matter
further. Daniel the notary read the profession of faith of the Council of
Nice and its statutes to the African Council.

The Profession of Faith of the Nicene Council.

We believe in one God, etc.,... and in the Holy Ghost. But those who say,
etc.,... anathematize them.

The statutes also of the Nicene Council in twenty heads were likewise
read, as are found written before. Then what things were promulgated in
the African Synods, were inserted in the present acts.

1064

CANON I.

That the statutes of the Nicene Council are to be scrupulously observed.

Aurelius the bishop said: Such are the statutes of the Nicene Council,
which our fathers at that time brought back with them: and preserving this
form, let these things which follow, adopted and confirmed by us, be kept
firm.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

Let the copies of the decrees of the Nicene Council which our fathers
brought back with them from that synod, be observed.

JOHNSON

It is certain that Caecilian, then Bishop of Carthage, was present at the
Council of Nice; that any other African bishop was there does not appear;
but probably he was attended with several clergyman, who were
afterwards ordained bishops.

1065

CANON II

Of Preaching the Trinity.

The whole Council said: By the favor of God, by a unanimous confession
the Church's faith which through us is handed down should be confessed
in this glorious assembly before anything else; then the ecclesiastical order
of each is to be built up and strengthened by the consent of all. That the
minds of our brethren and fellow bishops lately elevated may be
strengthened, those things should be propounded which we have certainly
received from our fathers, as the unity of the Trinity, which we retain
consecrated in our senses, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, which has no difference, as we say, so we shall instruct the people
of God. Moreover by all the bishops lately promoted it was said: So we
openly confess, so we hold, so we teach, following the Evangelic faith and
your teaching.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

No difference is recognized or taught by the decrees of the Council of Nice
between the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

This canon, or rather introduction, is taken from Canon j., of the Council
of Carthage held under Genethlius, A.D. 387 or 390.

1066

CANON III

Of Continence.

Aurelius the bishop said: When at the past council the matter on
continency and chastity was considered, those three grades, which by a
sort of bond are joined to chastity by their consecration, to wit bishops,
presbyters, and deacons, so it seemed that it was becoming that the sacred
rulers and priests of God as well as the Levites, or those who served at the
divine sacraments, should be continent altogether, by which they would be
able with singleness of heart to ask what they sought from the Lord: so
that what the apostles taught and antiquity kept, that we might also keep.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

Let a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon be chaste and continent.
This canon is taken from Canon ij., of Carthage 387 or 390.

1067

CANON IV.

Of the different orders that should abstain from their wives.

Faustinus, the bishop of the Potentine Church, in the province of
Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church, said: It seems good that a bishop,
a presbyter, and a deacon, or whoever perform the sacraments, should be
keepers of modesty and should abstain from their wives.

By all the bishops it was said: It is right that all who serve the altar should
keep pudicity from all women.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

Let those who pray abstain from their wives that they may obtain their
petitions.

This canon is taken from Canon ij., of Carthage 387 or 390, last
mentioned.

JOHNSON

See Canon XXV. "Abstain from their wives," i.e. Some time before and
after the Eucharist, as the old Scholiasts understand it. [i.e. the Greek
scholiasts, but see notes to Canon xii]. of Quinisext.]

1068

CANON V

Of Avarice.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: The cupidity of avarice (which, let no one
doubt, is the mother of all evil things), is to be henceforth prohibited, lest
anyone should usurp another's limits, or for gain should pass beyond the
limits fixed by the fathers, nor shall it be at all lawful for any of the clergy
to receive usury of any kind. And those new edicts (suggestiones) which
are obscure and generally ambiguous, after they have been examined by us,
will have their value fixed (formam accipiunt); but with regard to those
upon which the Divine Scripture hath already most plainly given
judgment, it is unnecessary that further sentence should be pronounced,
but what is already laid down is to be carried out. And what is
reprehensible in laymen is worthy of still more severe censure in the
clergy. The whole synod said: No one hath gone contrary to what is said
in the Prophets and in the Gospels with impunity.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

As the taking of any kind of usury is condemned in laymen, much more is it
condemned in clergymen.

This canon is made up of Canons 10:and xiij. of the Synod of Carthage
held under Grains in A.D. 345-348. This synod was held to return thanks
for the ending of the Donatist schism; and indeed for some time the evil
did seem to have been removed. Donatist worship was prohibited by the
imperial law and it was not until the times of Constans and Constantius
that it again openly asserted itself. The synod while in session also took

1069

advantage of the opportunity of passing some useful general canons on
discipline.

JOHNSON

See Canon of the Apostles 36; Nic, 17.

1070

CANON VI

That the chrism should not be made by presbyters.

Fortunatus the bishop, said: In former councils we remember that it was
decreed that the chrism or the reconciliation of penitents, as also the
consecration of virgins be not done by presbyters: but should anyone be
discovered to have done this, what ought we to decree with regard to him?

Aurelius the bishop said: Your worthiness has heard the suggestion of our
brother and fellow-bishop Fortunatus; What answer will you give? And all
the bishops replied: Neither the making of the chrism, nor the consecration
of virgins, is to be done by presbyters, nor is it permitted to a presbyter
to reconcile anyone in the public mass (in publica missa), this is the
pleasure of all of us.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

Let no presbyter make the chrism, nor prepare the unction, nor consecrate
virgins, nor publicly reconcile anyone to communion.

This is Canon iij. of the Carthaginian Synod under Genethlius, A.D. 387 or
390.

JOHNSON

Not the chrism used upon persons at their baptism, says the scholion in
Bishop Beveridge's Annotation, but the Mystical Chrism, viz., that used

1071

at Confirmation; though neither was the chrism used at baptism to be
consecrated by Priests. See Deer, of Gelasius 6.

Du Pin observes, That this is one of the first monuments where the name
of "mass" occurs to signify the public prayers, which the church made at
offering the Eucharist. And let the reader observe, that there is no mention
of the "mass" in the copies which the Greeks made use of. And further, he
restrains the meaning of the word "mass" too much, when he supposes
that it denoted the Communion Office only.

1072

CANON VII

Concerning those who are reconciled in peril of death.

Aurelius the bishop said: If anyone had fallen into peril of death during
the absence of the bishop, and had sought to reconcile himself to the divine
altars, the presbyter should consult the bishop, and so reconcile the sick
man at his bidding, which thing we should strengthen with healthy
counsel. By all the bishops it was said: Whatever your holiness has taught
us to be necessary, that is our pleasure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

A priest desiring to reconcile anyone in peril to the sacred altars must
consult the bishop and do what seems good to him.

This is Canon 4:of the Synod of 387 or 390.

JOHNSON

See Canon 43.

1073

CANON vm

Of those who make accusation against an elder; and that no criminal is to
be suffered to bring a charge against a bishop.

Numidius, the bishop of Maxula, said: Moreover, there are very many,
not of good life, who think that their elders or bishops should be the butt
for accusation; ought such to be easily admitted or no? Aurelius the bishop
said: Is it the pleasure of your charity that he who is ensnared by divers
wickednesses should have no voice of accusation against these?

All the bishops said: If he is criminous, his accusation is not to be
received.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

It has seemed good that they who are themselves defendants for crimes
should not bring accusations; nor should they be allowed to lay crimes to
anyone 's charge.

This is Canon 6:of Genethlius's Synod at Carthage, A.D. 387 or 390.

JOHNSON

See Canons 132 and 133 and Constantinople Canon 6.

[The "elders" mentioned in this canon are] probably the same with sense
in other canons, viz., Metropolitans, as is generally believed. The Latin
here calls them Majores natu, the Greek nax'epaq. Bishop Beveridge
supposes that the word denotes bishop, though perhaps Majores natu

1074

may signify presbyters. Justellus on the canon produces some seeming
authorities for this.

1075

CANON IX

Of those who on account of their deeds are justly cast forth from the
congregation of the Church.

Augustine the bishop, the legate of the Numidian province, said: Deign to
enact that if any perchance have been rightly on account of their crimes
cast forth from the Church, and shall have been received into communion
by some bishop or presbyter, such shall be considered as guilty of an
equal crime with them who flee away from the judgment of their own
bishop. And sit the bishops said: This is the pleasure of all of us.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

Let him be excommunicated who communicates with one excommunicated.
This is Canon 7:of the same synod of 387 or 390.

1076

CANON X

Of presbyters who are corrected by their own bishops.

Alypius the bishop, a legate of the province of Numidia, said: Nor should
tiffs be passed over; if by chance any presbyter when corrected by his
bishop, inflamed by self-conceit or pride, has thought fit to offer sacrifices
to God separately [from the authority of the bishop] or has believed it
right to erect another altar, contrary to ecclesiastical faith and discipline,
such should not get off with impunity. Valentine, of the primatial see of
the province of Numidia, said: The propositions made by our brother
Alypius are of necessity congruous to ecclesiastical discipline and faith;
therefore enact what seems good to your belovedness.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

If one condemned by his bishop shall separate himself and set up an altar
or make the offering he should be punished.

ARISTENUS.

Whoever has been cut off by his own bishop and does not go to the synod
to which his bishop is subject, that an examination may be made of the
grounds of his cutting off, and that whatever is contrary to justice may be
corrected; but, puffed up with pride and conceit, shall despise the synod
and separate himself from the Church, and shall set up another altar, and
shall offer to God the holy gifts; such an one shall not be allowed to go on
with impunity, since he is acting contrary to the faith and constitution of
the Church; but he is to be stricken with anathema.

1077

This and the following canon are Canon 8:of the so often mentioned synod
of 387 or 390.

JOHNSON

See Canon of the Apostles 24 (or 32) and that of Gangra 6.

1078

CANON XI

If any presbyter, inflated against his bishop, makes a schism, let him be
anathema.

All the bishops said: If any presbyter shall have been corrected by his
superior, he should ask the neighboring bishops that his cause be heard by
them and that through them he may be reconciled to his bishop: but if he
shall not have done this, but, puffed up with pride, (which may God
forbid!) he shall have thought it proper to separate himself from the
communion of his bishop, and separately shall have offered the sacrifice to
God, and made a schism with certain accomplices, let him be anathema,
and let him lose his place; and if the complaint which he brought against
his bishop shall [not] have been found to be well founded, an enquiry
should be instituted.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

A Presbyter condemned by his bishop, is allowed to appeal to the
neighboring bishops: but if he shall not make any appeal, but shall make a
schism, and be elated with conceit and shall offer the Holy Gifts to God, let
him be anathema.

See note to last canon. The last clause is certainly corrupt; in the council of
Carthage at which it was first adopted there is no "non," making the
meaning clear.

1079

CANON XII

If any bishop out of Synod time shall have fallen under accusation, let his
cause be heard by 12 bishops.

Felix the bishop, said: I suggest, according to the statutes of the ancient
councils, that if any bishop (which may God forbid!) shall have fallen
under any accusation, and there shall have been too great necessity to wait
for the summoning of a majority of the bishops, that he may not rest
under accusation, let his cause be heard by 12 bishops; and let a presbyter
be heard by six bishops with his own bishop, and a deacon shall be heard
by three.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

When a bishop is to be tried, if the whole synod does not sit, let at least
twelve bishops take up the matter; and for the case of a presbyter, six and
his own diocesan; and for the ease of a deacon, three.

This is Canon 10:of the Synod of Genethlius.

JOHNSON

Hereby must be meant African canons; that under Gratus [A.D. 348] had
decreed the same thing.

Who was the bishop's judge at the first instance does not appear by this
canon; but it is natural to suppose it was the Primate. It is probable that
this canon is to be understood of hearing upon an appeal, because it is
certain that a priest's cause, at the first instance, was to be tried before the
bishop (see Can. 10, 1 1). And therefore the latter part of the canon can be

1080

understood of no hearing but by way of appeal, nor by consequence the
former. And this seems more clear by Can. Afr. 29.

1081

CANON xm

That a bishop should not be ordained except by many bishops, but if there
should be necessity he may be ordained by three.

Bishop Aurelius said: What says your holiness on this matter? By all
the bishops it was answered: The decrees of the ancients must be observed
by us, to wit, that without the consent of the Primate of any province
even many bishops assembled together should not lightly presume to
ordain a bishop. But should there be a necessity, at his bidding, three
bishops should ordain him in any place they happen to be, and if anyone
contrary to his profession and subscription shall come into any place he
shall thereby deprive himself of his honor.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF XIH

At the bidding of the Primate even three bishops can make a bishop. But
whoever goes counter to his profession, and subscription, is deprived of
his honor by his own judgment.

This is Canon xij. of the before mentioned Synod of 387 or 390.

JOHNSON

See Can. Ap. l,Nic. 1.

He that was called a Metropolitan in other Churches was a Primate in
Africa.

1082

CANON XIV.

That one of the bishops of Tripoli should come as legate, and that a
presbyter might be heard there by five bishops.

IT also seemed good that one bishop from Tripoli, on account of the
poverty of the province, should come as a legation, and that there a
presbyter might be heard by five bishops, and a deacon by three, as has
been noted above, his own bishop presiding.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

On account of the scarcity of bishops in Tripoli, one bishop shall suffice for
a legation.

This canon is made up of two parts. The first part is Canon 5:of the
synod of Hippo, A. D. 393, and was repeated at the Carthaginian synod
of 397. The second half is from Canon viij. of the same council.

JOHNSON

(See Canon 12).

"Legate," i.e., to a Synod, there being few bishops in that province.

1083

CANON XV

Of the divers orders who serve the Church, that if any one fall into a
criminal business and refused to be tried by the ecclesiastical court, he
ought to be in danger therefor; and that the sons of bishops (sacerdotum)
are not to attend worldly shows.

Moreover it seemed good that if any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who
had a Criminal charge brought against him or who had a civil cause, refused
to be tried by the ecclesiastical tribunal, but wished to be judged by the
secular courts, even if he won his suit, nevertheless he should lose his
office.

This is the law in a criminal suit; but in a civil suit he shall lose that for the
recovery of which he instituted the proceedings, if he wishes to retain his
office.

This also seemed good, that if from some ecclesiastical judges an appeal
was taken to other ecclesiastical judges who had a superior jurisdiction,
this should in no way injure the reputation of those from whom the appeal
was taken, unless it could be shown that they had given sentence moved
by hatred or some other mental bias, or that they had been in some way
corrupted. But if by the consent of both parties judges had been chosen,
even if they were fewer in number than is specified, no appeal can be
taken.

And [it seemed good] that the sons of bishops should not take part in nor
witness secular spectacles. For this has always been forbidden to all
Christians, so let them abstain from them, that they may not go where
cursing and blasphemy are to be found.

1084

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

A bishop or cleric who has a criminal suit brought against him, if he leaves
the Church and betakes himself to secular judges even if he had been
unjustly used, shall lose his rank. And if he was successful in his political
affairs, if he follows this, he shall lose his own grade. No appeal can be
taken from the ecclesiastical judges, except they be proved to have given
their decision beforehand moved thereto by a bribe or by hatred. No
appeal can be taken from the decision of judges chosen by each side.

This canon is made up of Canons ix., x., and xj. of the Council of Hippo,
A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

In this canon the African bishops made bold with the Civil Courts. To lay
such restraints on bishops and clergymen is, I am sure, very proper, to say
no more.

1085

CANON XVI.

That no bishop, presbyter or deacon should be a "conductor;" and that
Readers should take wives; and that the clergy should abstain from usury;
and at what age they or virgins should be consecrated.

Likewise it seemed good that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should not
be "conductors" or "procurators;" nor seek their food by any base and vile
business, for they should remember how it is written, "No man fighting
for God cumbereth himself with worldly affairs."

Also it seemed good that Readers when they come to years of puberty,
should be compelled either to take wives or else to profess continence.

Likewise it seemed good that if a clergyman had lent money he should get
it back again, but if kind (speciem) he should receive back the same kind as
he gave.

And that younger than twenty-five years deacons should not be ordained,
nor virgins consecrated.

And that readers should not salute the people.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF XVI

A bishop, presbyter, and deacon may not be a "conductor" or a
"procurator. " A reader when he comes to puberty must contract marriage
or profess continence.

A cleric who has lent to someone, what he gave let him receive, or as
much.

Let not him be a deacons, who is made a deacon being under twenty-five.

1086
And let not readers salute the people.

This canon is made up of Canons xv., xviij., and xxj., and added to these
Canon j. of the same Second Series of the synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

Zonaras says this was never observed anywhere but in Africa. See Can.
Afr. 19.

Du Pin turns the Latin, saluto, by "addressing his speech to the people.'

1087

CANON XVII

That any province on account of its distance, may have its own Primate.

It seemed good that Mauretania Sitiphensis, as it asked, should have a
Primate of its own, with the consent of the Primate of Numidia from
whose synod it had been separated. And with the consent of all the
primates of the African Provinces and of all the bishops permission was
given, by reason of the great distance between them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Mauretania Sitiphensis, on account of the great distance, is permitted to
have its own Primate.

This canon is Canon iij . of the first series of canons enacted at Hippo in
393.

JOHNSON

N.B. From this place forward the Latin and Greek numeration varies; but
Justellus's Edition in Greek and Latin follows the Latin division.

1088

CANON XVIII. (Gk. 18:The Latin caption is the canon of the Greek.)

If any cleric is ordained he ought to be admonished to observe the
constitutions. And that neither the Eucharist nor Baptism: should be given
to the bodies of the dead. And that every year in every province the
Metropolitans come together in synod.

(Gk. Canon xix.)

It seemed good that before bishops, or clerics were ordained, the
provisions of the canons should be brought to their notice, lest, they might
afterwards repent of having through ignorance acted contrary to law.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF GREEK CANON XIX

The things which have been adopted by the synods should be made known
to him who is to be ordained.

(Gk. Canon xx.)

It also seemed good that the Eucharist should not be given to the bodies of
the dead. For it is written: "Take, Eat," but the bodies of the dead can
neither "take" nor "eat." Nor let the ignorance of the presbyters baptize
those who are dead.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF GREEK CANON

The Eucharist is not to be given to the body of one dead for it neither eats
nor drinks. The ignorance of a presbyter shall not baptize a dead man.

(Gk. Canon xxi.)

And therefore in this holy synod should be, confirmed in accordance with
the Nicene decrees, on account of Ecclesiastical causes, which often are
delayed to the injury of the people, that every year there should be a
synod, to which all, who are primates of the provinces, should send

1089

bishops as legates, from their own synods, two or as many as they
choose; so that when the synod meets it may have full power to act.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF GREEK CANON XXI

According to the decrees of the Nicene Fathers a yearly synod shall be
assembled, and two legates or as many as they shall choose, shall be sent
by the primates of every province.

This is composed of Canons II., IV., and V. of the second series of
enactments of Hippo, A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

The 18th canon in the Edition of Tilius and Bishop Beveridge runs thus;
viz. [If any clergyman be ordained he ought to be reminded to keep the
canons; and that the Eucharist or Baptism be not given to dead corpses;
and that the Metropolitans in every province meet in synod yearly.] They
speak their own language, and call him a Metropolitan, whom the Africans
called a Primate; but then they have also the entire 18th canon, as it here
stands according to the Latin, which they divide into three, and number
them 19, 20, 21.

See Can. Nic. 5. It seems very odd that they should allege the authority of
the Nicene Synod upon this occasion; for that orders a synod twice a year,
this but once; that intends a provincial synod, this a diocesan or national
one.

1090

CANON XIX. (Greek xxii.)

That if any bishop is accused the cause should be brought before the
primate of his own province.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: Whatever bishop is accused the accuser shall
bring the case before the primates of the province to which the accused
belongs, and he shall not be suspended from communion by reason of the
crime laid to his charge unless he fails to put in an appearance on the
appointed day for arguing his cause before the chosen judges, having been
duly summoned by the letters; that is, within the space of one month from
the day in which he, is found to have received the letters. But should he be
able to prove any true necessity which manifestly rendered it impossible
for him to appear, he shall have the opportunity of arguing his case within
another full month; but after the second month he shall not communicate
until he is acquitted.

But if he is not willing to come to the annual general council, so that his
cause may there be terminated, he himself shall be judged to have
pronounced the sentence of his own condemnation at the time in which he
does not communicate, nor shall he communicate either in his own church
or diocese.

But his accuser, if he has not missed any of the days for pleading the
cause, shall not be shut out from communion; but if he has missed some of
them, withdrawing himself, then the bishop shall be restored to
communion and the accuser shall be removed from communion; so,
nevertheless, that the possibility of going on with the case be not taken
from him, if he shall prove that his absence was caused by lack of power
and not by lack of will.

And this is enacted, that if the accuser turn out to be himself a criminal
when the case against the bishop has come to argument, he shall not be
allowed to testify unless he asserts that the causes are personal and not
ecclesiastical.

1091

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

A bishop accused and baled to judgment shall have the space of two
months; if there is any excuse for his delay from the other side. But after
this he shall be excommunicated if he does not appear. But if when the
accused is present the accuser flees, then the accuser shall be deprived of
communion. But the accuser who is infamous shall not be an accuser at all.

This canon is made up from Canons VI. and VII. of the last mentioned
second series of the enactments of Hippo, 393.

JOHNSON

See Can. Afr. 28 and Can. Ap. 11.

By this ["Universal Synod"] is meant a National Synod of Africa.

See Can. Constantinople 6.

1092

CANON XX. (Greek xxiii.)

Of accused presbyters or clerks.

But if presbyters or deacons shall have been accused, there shall be joined
together from the neighboring places with the bishop of tile diocese, the
legitimate number of colleagues, whom the accused shall seek from the
same; that is together with himself six in the case against a presbyter, in
that against a deacon three. They shall discuss the causes, and the same
form shall be kept with regard to days and postponements and removals
from communion, and in the discussion of persons between the accusers
and the accused.

But the causes of the rest of the clergy, the bishop of the place shall take
cognizance of and determine alone.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

When a presbyter is accused, six of the neighboring bishops together with
the bishop of that region shall judge the matter. But for a deacon, three.
What things concern the other clerics even one bishop shall examine.

This is Canon 8:of Hippo, 393.

JOHNSON

See Canon 12.

1093

CANON XXI. (Greek xxiv.)

That the sons of clergymen are not to be joined in marriage with heretics.

Likewise it seemed good that the sons of clergymen should not be joined
in matrimony with gentiles and heretics. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

[The same as the canon.]
This is Canon xij. of Hippo, 393.

1094

CANON XXII. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not
Catholics.

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood
relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way
of donation of their possessions.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

Bishops and clergymen shall give nothing of their goods to heretics, nor
confer aught upon them even if they be their relatives.

This is Canon 14:of Hippo, 393.

1095

CANON XXIII. (Greek xxvi.)

That bishops shall not go across seas.

Item, That bishops shall not go beyond seas without consulting the
bishop of the primatial see of his own province: so that from him they
may be able to receive a formed or commendatory letter.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIH

A bishop is not to cross the seas unless he has received from the Primate of
his region a letter dimissory.

This is Canon xxvij. of Hippo, 393.

JOHNSON

See note on Canons of the Apostles, 10. [viz:]

[The use of Letters Commendatory was very early in the Church; St. Paul
mentions them II. Cor. iij. 1. And it is not easy to be conceived how
discipline can be restored but by the reviving of this practice. It is surely
irregular to admit all chance comers to the Communion, who, for aught we
know, may stand excommunicated by their own bishop. Of the difference
between Commendatory and Pacific and Formal Letters, see Can. Chalc,
11; Apost, 25, 26; Ant, 6; Sardic, 13].

1096

CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under
the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.

Exodus.

Leviticus.

Numbers.

Deuteronomy.

Joshua the Son of Nun.

The Judges.

Ruth.

The Kings, 4:books.

The Chronicles, ij. books.

Job.

The Psalter.

The Five books of Solomon.

The Twelve Books of the Prophets.

Isaiah.

Jeremiah.

Ezechiel.

Daniel.

Tobit.

Judith.

Esther.

Ezra, ij. books.

Macchabees, ij. books.

1097

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Gospels, 4:books.

The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.

The Epistles of Paul, xiv.

The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.

The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.

The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.

The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.

The Revelation of John, j . book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the
other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these
are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in
church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV

Let nothing besides the canonical Scriptures be read in church.

This is Canon xxxyj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading
of the "passions of the Martyrs" on their Anniversaries is omitted from
the African code.

JOHNSON

These two books [i.e. the two Maccabees] are mentioned only in
Dionysius Exiguus's copy. See Can. Ap. ult., Can. Laod. ult.

"Boniface," i.e., Bishop of Rome.

1098

1099

CANON XXV. (Greek xxviii.)

Concerning bishops and the lower orders who wait upon the most holy
mysteries. It has seemed good that these abstain from their wives.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: We add, most dear brethren, moreover, since
we have heard of the incontinency of certain clerics, even of readers,
towards their wives, it seemed good that what had been enacted in divers
councils should be confirmed, to wit, that subdeacons who wait upon the
holy mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters, as well as bishops according
to former statutes, should contain from their wives, so that they should be
as though they had them not and unless they so act, let them be removed
from office. But the rest of the clergy are not to be compelled to this,
unless they be of mature age. And by the whole council it was said: What
your holiness has said is just, holy, and pleasing to God, and we confirm
it.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV

Those who handle holy things should abstain even from their own wives at
the times of their ministration.

This is rounded upon Canon 4:of the Council of Carthage, which met
September 13th, 401, but the provisions are more stringent here,
subdeacons as well as deacons being constrained to continence.

JOHNSON

1100

"Times of ministration," so it is explained, Can. Trull., 13, where there
were several African Bishops present, and allowed of that explication; yet
Dion. Exig. is not clear, viz., Secundum propria statuta.

By Can. Laod., 23. Ministers, i.e., sub-deacons, are forbid to touch the
Holy Vessels, yet here they are said to handle the Mysteries; I suppose
they might handle the Holy Vessels, etc. before and after the celebration,
but not during the solemnity; or else the customs of several ages and
countries differed as to this particular.

1101

CANON XXVI. (Greek xxix.)

That no one should take from the possessions of the Church.

Likewise it seemed good that no one should sell anything belonging to the
Church: that if there was no revenue, and other great necessity urged
thereto, this might be brought before the Metropolitan of the province that
the might deliberate with the appointed number of bishops whether this
should be done: that if such urgent necessity lay upon any church that it
could not take counsel beforehand, at least let it call together the
neighboring bishops as witnesses, taking care to refer all the necessities of
his church to the council: and that if he shall not do this, he shall be held as
responsible toward God, and as a seller in the eye of the council, and he
shall have lost thereby his honor.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVI.

Church goods must not be sold. If they bring in no revenue they may be
sold at the will of the bishops. If the necessity does not allow that
consultation should take place, he who sells shall call together the
neighboring bishops. If he does not do so he shall be held responsible to
God and to the Synod.

This is Canon 5:of the Synod of Carthage, Sept. 13th, 401.

JOHNSON

"Appointed number," i.e., Twelve, see Canon 12.

1102

CANON XXVII. (Greek xxx.)

Presbyters and deacons convicted of the graver crimes shall not receive
laying on of hands, like layman.

It also was confirmed that if presbyters or deacons were convicted of any
of the greater crimes on account of which it was necessary that they
should be removed from the ministry, that hands should not be laid upon
them as upon penitents, or as upon faithful layman, nor should it be
permitted that they be baptized over again and then advanced to the
clerical grade.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVII

A presbyter convicted and repenting, is not to be rebaptized as one to be
advanced, neither as a layman is he to be reordained.

This is Canon xij. of the before-mentioned Council of Carthage. Sept. 13th,
401.

JOHNSON

This canon seems to have been designed to preclude deposed clergymen
from all possibility of being restored, directly or indirectly.

1103

CANON XXVIII. (Greek xxxi.)

Presbyters, deacons, or clerics, who shall think good to carry appeals in
their causes across the water shall not at all be admitted to communion.

It also seemed good that presbyters, deacons, and others of the inferior
clergy in the causes which they had, if they were dissatisfied with the
judgments of their bishops, let the neighboring bishops with the consent of
their own bishop hear them, and let the bishops who have been called in
judge between them: but if they think they have cause of appeal from
these, they shall not betake themselves to judgments from beyond seas,
but to the primates of their own provinces, or else to an universal council,
as has also been decreed concerning bishops. But whoso shall think good
to carry an appeal across the water shall be received to communion by no
one within the boundaries of Africa.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVIH

Clerics who have been condemned, if they take exception to the judgment,
shall not appeal beyond seas, but to the neighboring bishops, and to their
own; if they do otherwise let them be excommunicated in Africa.

This canon is the same as Canon xvij. of the Synod of Carthage of 418, but
it has some words with regard to appeals which that canon does not
contain, viz.: "Aut ad universale conciliam, sicut et de episcopis soepe
constitutum est" This clause, affirming that bishops have often been
forbidden to appeal across the water from the decisions of the African
bishops, has caused great perplexity as no such decrees are extant. The
Ballerini, to avoid this difficulty, and possibly for other reasons, suggest
an entirely different meaning to the passage, and suppose that it means

1104

that "bishops have often been allowed to appeal to the Universal Council
and now this privilege is extended to priests." But this would seem to be a
rather unnatural interpretation and Van Espen in his Commentary shews
good reason for adopting the more evident view.

JOHNSON

See Can. Afr., 19.

Clearly the See of Rome is here aimed at, as if Carthage were the place
designed by Providence to put a stop to the growth of power in Christian
Rome, as well as heathen. It is strange, that this canon should be received
by the Church of Rome in former ages.

1105

CANON XXIX. (Greek xxxii.)

If anyone who is excommunicated shall receive communion before his
cause is heard he brings damnation on himself.

Likewise it pleased the whole Council that he who shall have been
excommunicated for any neglect, whether he be bishop, or any other cleric,
and shall have presumed while still under sentence, and his cause not yet
heard, to receive communion, he shall be considered by so doing to have
given sentence against himself.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIX.

One excommunicate who shall communicate before absolution sentences
himself.

This canon seems to be founded upon Canon 4:of Antioch.

JOHNSON

See Can. Ap., 21, Antioch, 4.

By this canon the criminous bishop is supposed to be excommunicated
before he comes to have his cause heard by a Synod, or by 12 neighboring
bishops: and it is therefore most rational to believe that he was thus
censured by his Primate. See Can. Afr., 12.

1106

CANON XXX. (Greek xxxiii.)

Concerning the accused or accuser.

Likewise it seemed good that the accused, or the accusor, if (living in the
same place as the accused) he fears some evil may be done him by the
tumultuous multitude, may choose for himself a place near by, where the
cause may be determined, and where there will be no difficulty in
producing the witnesses.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXX

Accuser or accused may select for himself a safe place if he fears violence.

1107

CANON XXXI. (Greek xxxiv.)

If certain clerics advanced by their own bishops are supercilious, let them
not remain whence they are unwilling to come forth.

It also seemed good that whoever of the clergy or of the deacons would
not help the bishop in the necessities of the churches, when he wished to
lift them to a higher position in his diocese, should no longer be allowed to
exercise the functions of that grade from which they were not willing to be
removed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXI

Who despises a greater honor shall lose what he hath.

JOHNSON

It is most probable that this canon is to be understood of deacons designed
by the bishop to be ordained priests, for the deacons, at least in some
Churches, were provided of a better maintenance than priests; or it may be
understood of inferior clergymen, who were permitted to marry in the
degree they were now in, but would not willingly take the order of priest
or deacon, because then they were prohibited marriage.

1108

CANON XXXII. (Greek xxxv.)

If any poor cleric, no matter what his rank may be, shall acquire any
property, it shall be subject to the power of the bishop.

It also seemed good that bishops, presbyters, deacons and any other of
the clergy, who when they were ordained had no possessions, and in the
time of their episcopate or after they became clerics, shall purchase in their
own names lands or any other property, shall be held guilty of the crime
of intrenching upon the Lord's goods, unless, when they are admonished
to do so, they place the same at the disposal of the Church. But should
anything come to them personally by the liberality of anyone, or by
succession from some relative, let them do what they will with it; if,
however, they demand it back again, contrary to what they proposed,
they shall be judged unworthy of ecclesiastical honor as back-sliders.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXII

Whoso after his ordination although he has nothing yet buys afield, shall
give it to the Church, unless he got it by succession from a relation or by
pure liberality.

In this canon there is difficulty about the meaning of the phrase "quod
eorum proposito congruat." Hardouin suggests that "propositum" is the
same as "profession," or "calling," and the meaning, were this the case,
would be that he must employ it as befits his clerical calling. Van Espen
follows Balsamon and Zonaras in understanding it to mean that if he has
proposed to employ a part for the Church or for the poor, and changes his
mind, he is to be deposed; and this meaning I have followed.

1109

CANON XXXIII. (Greek xxxvi.)

That presbyters should not sell the goods of the Church in which they are
constituted; and that no bishop can rightly use anything the title to which
vests in the ecclesiastical maternal center (jxorcpiKO<;).

It also seemed good that presbyters should not sell the ecclesiastical
property where they are settled without their bishop's knowledge; and it
is not lawful for bishops to sell the goods of the Church without the
council or their presbyters being aware of it. Nor should the bishop
without necessity usurp the property of the maternal (matricis) Church
[nor should a presbyter usurp the property of his own cure (tituli)] .

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIH

A presbyter is not to sell ecclesiastical property without the consent of the
bishop. A bishop is not to sell without the approbation of his synod a
country property.

Fuchs (Biblioth. der Kirchenvers., vol. iij., p. 5) thinks the text is corrupt
in the last sentence and should be corrected by Canon 10:of the Council of
Carthage of 421, so as to read, "that which is left by will to a rural church
in the diocese must not be applied to the Mother Church through the
usurpation of the bishop."

JOHNSON

"Or title." So I turn the Lat. Titulus for want of a proper English word. It
denotes a lesser church in any city or diocese, served by a priest.

1110

"The Mother Church," i.e., The cathedral, the Church in which the bishop
resides.

Moreover at this Synod we read all the conciliar decrees of all the Province
of Africa in the different synods held in the time of Bishop Aurelius.

Concerning the Synod which assembled in Hippo Regio.

Under the most illustrious consuls, the most glorious Emperor Theodosius
Augustus for the third time, mid Abundantius, on the viij . Ides of October,
at Hippo Regio, in the secretarium of the Church of Peace. And the rest of
the acts of this Synod have not been written down here because these
constitutions are found set forth above.

Of the Council of Carthage at which the proconsular bishops were
appointed legates to the Council at Adrumetum.

In the consulate of the most glorious emperors — Arcadius for the third
time and Honorius for the second time, Augustuses, on the vith day before
the Calends of July, at Carthage. In this council the proconsular bishops
were chosen as legates to the Council of Adrumetum.

Of a Council of Carthage at which many statutes were made.

In the consulate of those most illustrious men, Caesarius and Atticus, on
the vth day before the Calends of September in the secretarium of the
restored basilica, when Aurelius the bishop, together with the bishops, had
taken his seat, the deacons also standing by, and Victor the old man of
Puppiana, Tutus of Migirpa and Evangel of Assuri.

The Allocution of Aurelius the bishop of Carthage to the bishops.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: After the day fixed for the council, as ye
remember, most blessed brethren, we sat and waited for the legations of all
the African provinces to assemble upon the day, as I have said, set by our
missive; but when the letter of our Byzacene bishops had been read, that
was read to your charity, which they had discussed with me who had
anticipated the time and day of the council; also it was read by our
brethren Honoratus and Urban, who are today present with us in this
council, sent as the legation of the Sitifensine Province. For our brother
Reginus of the Vege [tjselitane Church, the letters sent to my littleness by

mi

Crescentian and Aurelius, our fellow-bishops, of the first sees of the [two]
Numidias, in which writings your charity will see with me how they
promised that either they themselves would be good enough to come or
else that they would send legates according to custom to this council; but
this it seems they did not do at all, the legates of Mauritania Sitifensis,
who had come so great a distance gave notice that they could stay no
longer; and, therefore, brethren, if it seem good to your charity, let the
letters of our Byzacene brethren, as also the breviary, which they joined to
the same letter, be read to this assembly, so that if by any chance they are
not entirely satisfactory to your charity, such things in the breviary may
be changed for the better after diligent examination. For this very thing our
brother and fellow-bishop of the primatial see, a man justly conspicuous
for his gravity and prudence, Mizonius, demanded in a letter he addressed
to my littleness. If therefore it meets with your approval, let there be read
the things which have been adopted and let each by itself be considered by
your charity.

1112

CANON XXXIV. (Greek xxxvii.)

That nothing of those things enacted in the Synod of Hippo is to be
corrected.

Bishop Epigonius said: In this summary (Breviarium) which was adopted
at the Synod of Hippo, we think nothing should be amended, nor anything
added thereto except that the day on which the holy Feast of Easter falls
should be announced in Synod.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIV

Nothing is to be corrected in the synod of Hippo, nor anything added
thereto, except that the time of celebrating Easter should be announced in
time of synod.

The first of these introductions is that of the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393;
the next that of Carthage in A.D. 394, and the third that of the same place,
held August 28th, A.D. 397.

This canon (number 34:of the code) is the beginning of Canon 5:of the last
named Synod.

JOHNSON

See Canons 51 and 73.

1113

CANON XXXV. (Greek xxxviii.)

That bishops or clergymen should not easily set free their sons.

That bishops or clerics should not easily let their children pass out of their
power; unless they were secure of their morals and age, that their own sins
may pertain to them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXV

Bishops and clergy shall not set their children free until their morals are
established.

This canon is Canon xiij. of the Synod of Hippo A.D. 393. CANON
XXXVI. (Greek xxxix.)

That bishops or clergymen are not to be ordained unless they have made
all their family Christians.

None shall be ordained bishop, presbyters, or deacons before all the
inmates of their houses shall have become Catholic Christians.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVI

He shall not be ordained who hath not made all his household orthodox.
This canon is Canon xvij. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

1114

CANON XXXVII. (Greek xl.)

It is not lawful to offer anything in the Holy Mysteries except bread and
wine mixed with water.

In the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord nothing else shall be
offered than that which the Lord himself ordained, that is to say, bread and
wine mixed with water. But let the first-fruits, whether honey or milk, be
offered on that one most solemn day, as is wont, in the mystery of the
infants. For although they are offered on the altar, let them have
nevertheless their own benediction, that they may be distinguished from
the sacraments of the Lord's body and blood; neither let there be offered
as first-fruits anything other than grapes and corns.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVII

Let bread and wine mixed with water only be offered.

The text of the Greek here does not exactly agree with the Latin. The
Greek reads as follows: "That in the Holy Mysteries nothing else be
offered than the body and blood of the Lord, even as the Lord himself
delivered, that is bread and wine mixed with water."

Further down with regard to the first-fruits I have followed the Greek text
which seems decidedly preferable, in fact the Latin is so corrupt that Van
Espen notes that for the ordinary "offerantur" some MSS. read "non
offerantur."

This canon is Canon xxiij. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

1115

JOHNSON

See Can. Ap. 2.

"The Mystery of Infants" of this Quoere, all that I have met with are in
the dark as to this matter. Dionysius Exiguus's Latin is Lac, etc. The
Greek stands thus, "Eixe ydXoc k.t.X.

1116

CANON XXXVIII. (Greek xli.)

That clerics or those who are continent shall not visit virgins or widows.

Neither clerics nor those who profess continence should enter the houses
of widows or virgins without the bidding or consent of the bishops or
presbyters: and then let them not go alone, but with some other of the
clergy, or with those assigned by the bishop or presbyter for this purpose;
not even bishops and presbyters shall go alone to women of this sort,
except some of the clergy are present or some other grave Christian men.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXVHI

Clerics and those who are continent shall not go to widows or virgins,
unless at the bidding of the bishop and presbyter: and even then not alone,
but with those with whom presbyters and deacons visit them.

This canon is canon 24:of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393. CANON
XXXIX. (Greek xlii.)

That a bishop should not be called the chief of the priests.

That the bishop of the first see shall not be called Prince of the Priests or
High Priest (Summus Sacerdos) or any other name of this kind, but only
Bishop of the First See.

NOTES

1117

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXXIX

The first bishop shall not be called Prince of the Priests nor High Priest but
Bishop of the first see.

This canon is Canon 25:of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

"The bishop of the Prime See," i.e., The primate. So Xantippus is called
bishop of the Prime. So in Numidia, Nicetius in Mauritania, in the original
Latin between Can. 85, and Can. 86, and see Can. 86.

N.B. Justellus on this canon shews, that Tertullian, Optatus, and
Augustine, did apply these titles to their own African bishops; and
therefore supposes, that the meaning of the canon was to suppress the
flame of vain glory, which proceeded from these sparks of lofty titles.

1118

CANON XL. (Greek xliii.)

Concerning the non-frequenting of taverns by the clergy, except when
traveling.

That the clergy are not to enter taverns for eating or drinking, nor unless
compelled to do so by the necessity of their journey.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XL

A cleric on a journey may enter a tavern, otherwise not.
This canon is Canon xxyj. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

1119

CANON XLI. (Greek xliv.)

That by men who are fasting sacrifices are to be offered to God.

That the Sacraments of the Altar are not to be celebrated except by those
who are fasting, except on the one anniversary of the celebration of the
Lord's Supper; for if the commemoration of some of the dead, whether
bishops or others, is to be made in the afternoon, let it be only with
prayers, if those who officiate have already breakfasted.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLI

The holy mysteries are not offered except by those who are fasting.
This canon is Canon xxviij. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

From this canon and the 29th of Trullo, it is evident that by the Lord's
Supper, the ancients understood the supper going before the Eucharist,
and not the Eucharist itself, and that on Monday-Thursday yearly, before
the Eucharist, they had such a public entertainment in imitation of our
Savior's last Paschal Supper. I refer it to the consideration of the learned
reader, whether St. Paul, by the Aelrcvov icupiocKov, 1 Corinthians 11:20,
does not mean this entertainment. For the obvious translation of that verse
is, "It is not your [duty or business] when you meet together [in the
church] to eat the Lord's Supper." He would not have them to eat this
supper in the public assembly: "For" (says he) "have ye not houses to eat
and drink in, or despise ye the Church of God?" From the 4th age forward,

1120

the Eucharist was sometimes called the Lord's Supper; but from the
beginning it was not so. And even after it did sometimes pass by this
name, yet at other times this name was strictly used for the previous
entertainment, as may be seen by this canon, which was made in the 4th
century. Further it seems probable, that the Lord's Supper and the
Love-feast was the same, though it was not usually called the Lord's
Supper; but only (perhaps) that love-feast, which was made on the day of
the institution of the Eucharist, which we now call Maundy-Thursday.

1121

CANON XLII. (Greek xiv.)

Concerning the not having feasts under any circumstances in churches.

That no bishops or clerics are to hold feasts in churches, unless perchance
they are forced thereto by the necessity of hospitality as they pass by.
The people, too, as far as possible, are to be prohibited from attending
such feasts.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLII

A cleric is not to feast in a church, unless perchance he is driven thereto by
the necessity of hospitality. This also is forbidden to the laity.

This canon is Canon 29:of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

1122

CANON XLIII. (Greek xlvi.)

Concerning penitents.

That to penitents the times of their penance shall be assigned by the will
of the bishop according to the difference of their sins; and that a presbyter
shall not reconcile a penitent without consulting the bishop, unless the
absence of the bishop urges him necessarily thereto. But when of any
penitent the offense has been public and commonly known, so as to have
scandalized the whole Church, he shall receive imposition of the hand
before the altar (Lat. "before the apse").

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIH

The bishops shall fix the time of penance for those doing penance
according to their sins. A presbyter without his knowledge shall not
reconcile one doing penance, even when necessity impels him thereto.

This canon is canon 30:of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

Here [i. e., in translating absidem church-porch] I follow Zonoras; see Can.
Nic, 11. Du Pin renders absidem, a high place near the bishop's throne.

1123

CANON XLIV. (Greek xlvii.)

Concerning Virgins.

That holy virgins when they are separated from their parents by whom
they have been wont to be guarded, are to be commended by the care of
the bishop, or presbyter where the bishop is absent, to women of graver
age, so that living with them they may take care of them, lest they hurt the
reputation of the Church by wandering about. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIV

She who leaves her father for the sake of virginity is to be commended to
grave women.

This canon is Canon xxxj. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393.

1124

CANON XLV

(Greek xlviii.)

Concerning those who are sick and cannot answer for themselves.

That the sick are to be baptized who cannot answer for themselves if
their [servants] shall have spoken at their own proper peril a testimony of
the good will [of the sick man].

(Greek Canon xlix.)

Concerning players who are doing penance and are converted to the Lord.

That to players and actors and other persons of that kind, as also to
apostates when they are converted and return to God, grace or
reconciliation is not to be denied.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLV

That he who cannot answer for himself on account of illness is to be
baptized when he shall have given evidence of his desire.

A repentant actor is to be received to penance.

This canon is made up of Canons xxxij. and xxxiij. of the Synod of Hippo,
A.D. 393.

JOHNSON

1125

"Apostates," i.e., those who elsewhere are called Lapsi; those who had
done sacrifice through the violence of torment in time of persecution,
professing in the meantime that their consciences did not consent to what
their hands did.

CANON XL VI. (Greek I.)

Concerning the passions of the martyrs.

The passions of the Martyrs may be read when their anniversary days are
celebrated.

NOTE.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVI

The passions of the martyrs are to be read their commemorations.

This canon is the last part of Canon xxxyj. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D.
393.

1126

CANON XL VII. (Greek li.)

Concerning [the Donatists and] the children baptized by the Donatists.

Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel
with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning
those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not
do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God
with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent
their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar.

But when these things had been begun, Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops
of Mauritania Sitifensis, said: When some time ago we were sent to your
holiness, we laid aside what things had been written on, this account, that
we might wait for the arrival of our brethren the legates from Numidia. But
because not a few days have passed in which they have been looked for
and as yet they are not arrived, it is not fitting that we should delay any
longer the commands we received from our brother-bishops; and therefore,
brethren, receive our story with alacrity of mind. We have heard
concerning the faith of the Nicene tractate: True it is that sacrifices are to
be forbidden after breakfast, so that they may be offered as is right by
those who are fasting, and this has been confirmed then and now.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVII

When those in infancy baptized by Donatists are converted, this shall be no
impediment to them. And the Holy Mysteries, as is right, are to be
celebrated only by them fasting.

This canon is made from Canon xxxvij. of the Synod of Hippo, A.D. 393,
and from Canon j. of the Synod of Carthage of August 28th, A.D. 397.

1127

JOHNSON

See Can. 41.

The pretense that the Donatists had for making a schism was, that
Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, had, in the time of persecution, been a
Traditor, i.e., given up the Bible to the heathen inquisitors; this was denied
by the Orthodox, who charged them with the same crime in effect, viz. of
being too favorable to the Traditors, and those that had lapsed. They
likewise are charged with Arianism.

I have omitted what is here mentioned concerning the Council of Nice;
because I do not find that any one has been able to penetrate into the
meaning of the Fathers as to that particular.

1128

CANON XLVIII. (Greek lii.)

Of rebaptisms, reordinations, and translations of bishops.

But we suggest that we decree what was set forth by the wisdom of the
plenary synod at Capua, that no rebaptisings, nor reordinations should
take place, and that bishops should not be translated. For Cresconius,
bishop of Villa Regis, left his own people and invaded the Church of
Tubinia and having been admonished down to this very day, to leave,
according to the decree, the diocese he had invaded, he treated the
admonition with disdain. We have heard that the sentence pronounced
against him has been confirmed; but we seek, according to our decree, that
ye deign to grant that being driven thereto by necessity, it be free to us to
address the rector of the province against him, according to the statutes of
the most glorious princes, so that whoever is not willing to acquiesce in
the mild admonition of your holiness and to amend his lawlessness, shall
be immediately cast out by judicial authority. Aurelius the bishop said: By
the observance of the constituted form, let him not be judged to be a
member of (be synod, if he has been asked by you, dear brethren, to
depart and has refused: for out of his own contempt and contumacy he has
fallen to the power of the secular magistrate. Honoratus and Urban the
bishops said: This pleases us all, does it not? And all the bishops
answered: It is just, it pleases us.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLVIH

Let there be no rebaptisms, nor reordinations nor translations of bishops.
Therefore let Cresconius be forbidden by judicial authority, for he has left
his own people, and has taken possession of the diocese of Ceneum,
although ecclesiastically admonished that he was not to change.

1129

This canon is Canon j ., of the Synod of Carthage of August 28th. A.D.
397. The acts of this synod were first accurately edited by the Ballerini (in
their edition of the works of St. Leo) and were printed by Mansi, in an
amended form, in his Concilia.

1130

CANON XLIX. (Greek liii.)

How many bishops there should be to ordain a bishop.

Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: We have issued this command,
that (because lately two of our brethren, bishops of Numidia, presumed to
ordain a pontiff,) only by the concurrence of twelve bishops the
ordination of bishops be celebrated. Aurelius, the bishop, said: The ancient
form shall be preserved, that not less than three suffice who shall have
been designated for ordaining the bishop. Moreover, because in Tripoli,
and in Arzug the barbarians are so near, for it is asserted that in Tripoli
there are but five bishops, and out of that number two may be occupied
by some necessity; but it is difficult that all of the number should come
together at any place whatever; ought this circumstance to be an
impediment to the doing of what is of utility to the Church? For in this
Church, to which your holiness has deigned to assemble we frequently
have ordinations and nearly every Lord's day; could I frequently summon
twelve, or ten, or about that number of bishops? But it is an easy thing for
me to join a couple of neighbors to my littleness. Wherefore your charity
will agree with me that this cannot be observed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XLIX

Fewer than three bishops do not suffice for the ordination of a bishop.
This is Canon ij., of the Synod of Carthage, August 28th, 397.

1131

JOHNSON

See Can. 13.

The occasion of this canon was a complaint that two bishops in Numidia
had presumed to ordain a third; upon which it was proposed that not less
than twelve should perform this office: But Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage,
desires that the old form might be observed, and three bishops be
sufficient; especially, because in Tripoli, where there were but five
bishops in all, it would be hard to get more than three together. And he
adds, that though it were no hard matter for him to get two bishops to
assist him in his ordinations at Carthage, yet it would not be practicable
for him to get twelve: "For," says he, "we have frequently, and almost
every Sunday, men to be ordained." He must mean bishops for otherwise
it had been nothing to his purpose, because he could ordain priests or
deacons by himself, without the assistance of other bishops: and yet it is
very strange, that ordinations of bishops should be so frequent as to bear
that expression of "almost every Sunday." There were indeed above one
hundred bishoprics in his Province; but these could not occasion above six
or eight ordinations in a year; but it is probable that the privilege belonging
to him, Can. 55, brought very many ordinations to the church of Carthage;
for it is evident, there was a great scarcity of men fit for the Episcopal
office in Africa. It is further evident from this canon, that bishops were
not ordained in the church of their own see, but in that of the Primate. See
Can. Ant, 19.

1132

CANON L. (Greek liv.)

How many bishops should be added to the number of those ordaining, if
any opposition had been made to the one to be ordained.

But this should be decreed, that when we shall have met together to
choose a bishop, if any opposition shall arise, because such things have
been treated by us, the three shall not presume to purge him who was to
be ordained, but one or two more shall be asked to be added to the
aforesaid number, and the persons of those objecting shall first be
discussed in the same place (plebe) for which he was to be ordained. And
last of all the objections shall be considered; and only after he has been
cleared in the public sight shall he at last be ordained. If this agrees with
the mind of your holiness, let it be confirmed by the answer of your
worthiness. All the bishops said, We are well pleased.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON L

If any controversy arise concerning a bishop who has been elected by three
bishops, let two others be coopted, and so let there be an examination made
of his affairs; and if it shall appear that he is pure, let him be ordained.

This canon is Canon iij., of the Synod of Carthage, Aug. 28th, 397.

JOHNSON

Here the bishops meet to choose a new one, and it is evident by the
foregoing canon, that they met not in the vacant church, but in that of the
Primate; and that therefore not the people, but the bishops had the chief

1133

share in the election. The people might make their objections, which
supposes they knew who their intended bishop was; but the bishops were
the judges of the cause. And it seems probable, that if there were any
dispute, some of the bishops went to the vacant church to hear the
allegations against the person that was elected, or proposed.

1134

CANON LI. (Greek lv.)

That the date of Easter is to be announced by the Church of Carthage.

Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: Since all things treated by our
commonitory are known, we add also what has been ordered concerning
the day of Easter, that we be informed of the date always by the Church
of Carthage, as has been accustomed and that no short time before.
Aurelius, the bishop, said: If it seems good to your holiness, since we
remember that we pledged ourselves sometime ago that every year we
would come together for discussion, when we assemble, then let the date
of the holy Easter be announced through the legates present at the Council.
Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: Now we seek of the present
assembly that ye deign to inform our province of that day by letters.
Aurelius, the bishop, said: It is necessary it should be so.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LI

Let the day on which Easter is to be kept be announced by the Church of
Carthage in the annual synod.

This canon is the first part of Canon 4:of the Synod of Carthage, August
28th, 397.

JOHNSON

The synod met in August. See Can. 73.

1135

CANON LIL (Greek lvi.)

Of visiting provinces.

Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: This was commanded to us in
word, that because it had been decreed in the Council of Hippo that each
province should be visited in the time of the council, that ye also deign
that this year or next, according to the order ye have drawn up, you should
visit the province of Mauritania.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: Of the province of Mauritania because it is
situated in the confines of Africa, we have made no decree, for they are
neighbors of the barbarians; but God grant (not however that I make any
rash promise of doing so), we may be able to come to your province. For
ye should consider, brethren, that this same thing our brethren of Tripoli
and of the Arzuges region could demand also, if occasion offered ]

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LH

As the Synod at Hippo decreed, every province should be visited in an
annual Synod.

This canon is the last part of canon iv of the Council of Carthage, August
28th, A. D. 397.

JOHNSON

The manner of visiting provinces, and that annually; and the persons by
whom this visitation was performed, can scarce now be discovered; only it
appears, by the words of Aurelius, that the Bishop of Carthage was one, if

1136

not the only visitor; but it was impossible that he could visit all the
provinces in Africa personally every year, he must use delegates.

1137

CANON Lin. (Greek lvii.)

That dioceses should not receive a bishop except by the consent of its
own bishop.

Epigonius, the bishop, said: In many councils it has been decreed by the
sacerdotal assembly that such communities as are contained in other
dioceses and ruled by their bishops, and which never had any bishops of
their own, should not receive rulers, that is bishops, for themselves except
with the consent of the bishop under whose jurisdiction they have been.
But because some who have attained a certain domination abhor the
communion of the brethren, or at least, having become depraved, claim for
themselves domination with what is really tyranny, for the most part
tumid and stolid presbyters, who lift up their heads against their own
bishops or else win the people to themselves by feasting them or by
malignant persuasion, that they may by unlawful favor wish to place
themselves as rulers over them; we indeed hold fast that glorious desire of
your mind, most pious brother Aurelius, for thou hast often opposed
these things, paying no heed to such petitioners; but on account of their
evil thoughts and basely conceived designs this I say, that such a
community, which has always been subject in a diocese, ought not to
receive a rector, nor should it ever have a bishop of its own. Therefore if
this which I have proposed seems good to the whole most holy council, let
it be confirmed.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: I am not in opposition to the proposition of
our brother and fellow bishop: but I confess that this has been and shall be
my practice concerning those who were truly of one mind, not only with
regard to the Church of Carthage, but concerning every sacerdotal
assemblage. For there are many who, as has been said, conspire with the
people whom they deceive, tickling their ears and blandly seducing them,
men of vicious lives, or at least puffed up and separated from this meeting,
who think to watch over their own people, and never come to our council
for fear that their wickedness should be discussed. I say, if it seems good,
that not only should these not keep their dioceses, but that every effort

1138

should be made to have them expelled by public authority from that
church of theirs which has evilly favored them, and that they be removed
even from the chief sees. For it is right that he who cleaves to all the
brethren and the whole council, should possess with full right not only his
church but also the dioceses. But they who think that the people suffice
them and spurn the love of the brethren, shall not only, lose their dioceses,
but (as I have said,) they shall be deprived by public authority of their
own cures as rebels. Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: The lofty
provision of your holiness obtains the adherence of the minds of all of us,
and I think that by the answer of all what you have deigned to propose
will be confirmed. All the bishops said: Placet, placet.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIII

Whoso shall neglect his call to a synod, and shall despise the charity of his
brethren, putting his trust in the multitude who are with him, let him be
deprived of them by the imperial authority.

This canon is Canon 5:of the Synod of Carthage of August 28th, A. D.
397, beginning with the second clause.

JOHNSON

It is very evident that a diocese here signifies some town or village lying
remote from the Bishop's City, but belonging to his jurisdiction; and is to
be understood to be a place distinct from the bishop's church or cathedral.

See also Can. 56 and Deer. Anast., 6.

1139

CANON LIV. (Greek lviii.)

That a strange cleric is under no circumstances to be received by another.

Epigonius, the bishop, said: This has been decreed in many councils, also
just now it has been confirmed by your prudence, most blessed brethren,
that no bishop should receive a strange cleric into his diocese without the
consent of the bishop to whose jurisdiction the cleric belongs. But I say
that Julian, who is ungrateful for the layouts bestowed upon him by God
through my littleness, is so rash and audacious, that a certain man who
was baptized by me, when he was a most needy boy, commended to me
by the same, and when for many years he had been fed and reared by me,
it is certain that this one, as I have said, was baptized in my church, by
my own unworthy hands; this same man began to exercise the office of
reader in the Mappalien diocese, and read there for nearly two years, with
a most incomprehensible contempt of my littleness, the aforenamed Julian
took this man, whom he declared to be a citizen of his own city Vazarita,
and without consulting me ordained him deacon. If, most blessed brethren,
that is permissible, let it be declared to us; but if not, let such an impudent
one be restrained that he may in no way mix himself in someone's
communion.

Numidius, the bishop, said: If, as it seems, Julian did this without your
worthiness being asked for his consent, nor even consulted, we all judge
that this was done iniquitously and unworthily. Wherefore unless Julian
shall correct his error, and shall return the cleric to your people with
proper satisfaction, since what he did was contrary to the decrees of the
council, let him be condemned and separated from us on account of his
contumacy. Epigonius, the bishop, said: Our father in age, and most
ancient by his promotion, that laudable man, our brother and colleague
Victor wishes that this petition should be made general to all.

1140

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIV

Since Julian has ordained a reader of Epigonius 's to the diaconate, unless
he shall shew authority received from him to do so, he shall increase the
penalty of his contumacy.

This canon is Canon vj. of the Synod of Carthage, August 28th, A. D. 397.

JOHNSON

See Canon of the Apostles, 12 (15, 16), and Chalcedon, 10.

1141

CANON LV. (Greek lix.)

That it be lawful for the bishop of Carthage to ordain a cleric whenever he
wishes.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: My brethren, pray allow me to speak. It
often happens that ecclesiastics who are in need seek deacons [proepositis
in the Latin], or presbyters or bishops from me: and I, bearing in mind
what things have been ordained these I observe, to wit, I summon the
bishop of the cleric who is sought for, and I shew him the state of affairs,
how that they of a certain church ask for a certain one of his clergy.
Perchance then they make no objection, but lest it happen that afterwards
they might object when in this case they shall have been demanded
(postulati) by me, who (as you know) have the care of many churches and
of the ordinands. It is fight therefore that I should summon a fellow bishop
with two or three witnesses from our number. But if he be found
indevotus (6cKoc9oaicoTo<;), what does your charity think should be done?
For I, as ye know, brethren, by the condescension of God have the care of
all the churches.

Numidius, the bishop, said: This see always had the power of ordaining a
bishop according to the desire of each Church as he wills and on whose
name there was agreement (fuisset conventus). Epigonius, the bishop, said:
Your good nature makes small use of your powers, for you make much
less use of them than you might, since, my brother, you are good and
gentle to all; for you have the power, but it is far from your practice to
satisfy the person of each bishop in prima tantummodo conventione. But
if it should be thought that the rights of this see ought to be vindicated,
you have the duty of supporting all the churches, wherefore we do not
give thee power, but we confirm that power thou hast, viz.: that thou hast
the right at thy will always to choose whom thou wilt, to constitute
prelates over peoples and churches who shall have asked thee to do so,
and when thou so desirest. Posthumianus, the bishop, said: Would it be
right that he who had only one presbyter should have that one taken away
from him? Aurelius, the bishop, said: But there may be one bishop by

1142

whom many presbyters can be made through the divine goodness, but one
fit to be made bishop is found with difficulty. Wherefore if any bishop has
a presbyter necessary for the episcopate and has one only, my brother, as
you have said, even that one he ought to give up for promotion.
Posthumianus, the bishop, said: If some other bishop has plenty of clergy,
should that other diocese come to my help? Aurelius, the bishop, said: Of
course, when you have come to the help of another Church, he who has
many clerics should be persuaded to make one over to you for ordination.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LV

It is lawful for the bishop of Carthage, whenever he wills, to choose those
who are to be set over the churches: even if there were only one presbyter
worth of rule. For one bishop can ordain many presbyters, but one fit for
the episcopate is hard to find.

This canon is the first half of Canon vij. of the Council of Carthage held
August 28th A. D. 397.

JOHNSON

It is evident, that this privilege of the Bishop of Carthage extended to the
whole African diocese or the six provinces of Africa, which contained near
five hundred bishoprics. This was what caused such frequent ordinations
of bishops in the Church of Carthage (See Can. Afr. 49, and the Note) And
it is further apparent, that the Bishop of Carthage had some power over
the whole African church, and was probably their visitor (See Can. 52).
But that he had the sole power of ordaining bishops for every church, with
the assistance of any two bishops, does not appear, though Justellus is of
this opinion; nay, the 49th canon proves that he had it not.

1143

CANON LVI. (Greek lx.)

That bishops who were ordained for dioceses shall not choose for
themselves dioceses [in the Greek provinces].

Honoratus and Urban, the bishops, said: We have heard that it has been
decreed that dioceses should not be deemed fit to receive bishops, unless
with the consent of their founder: but in our province since some have
been ordained bishops in the diocese, by the consent of that bishop by
whose power they were established, have even seized dioceses for
themselves, this should be corrected by the judgment of your charity, and
prohibited for the future. Epigonius, the bishop, said: To every bishop
should be reserved what is right, so that from the mass of dioceses no part
should be snatched away, so as to have its own bishop, without consent
from the proper authority. For it shall suffice, if the consent be given, that
the diocese thus set apart have its own bishop only, and let him not seize
other dioceses, for only the one cut off from the many merited the honor
of receiving a bishop. Aurelius, the bishop, said: I do not doubt that it is
pleasing to the charity of you all, that he who was ordained for a diocese
by the consent of the bishop who held the mother see, should retain only
the people for whom he was ordained. Since therefore I think that
everything has been treated of, if all things are agreeable to your mind,
pray confirm them all by your suffrage. All the bishops said: We all are
well pleased, and we have confirmed them with our subscription. And
they signed their names.

I, Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, have consented to this
decree, and have subscribed what has been read. So too did all the other
bishops in like fashion sign.

NOTES

1144

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVI

If any diocese has received consent to have a bishop of its own from him
who has the right, that one shall not invade the rest of the dioceses.

This is the last part of Canon vij. of the Synod of Carthage, August 28, A.
D. 397.

JOHNSON

It had scarce been worth while to give so much of this canon in English if I
had not thought it proper, in order to confirm the sense of the word
diocese, mentioned in note on Can. 53, viz., a town or village, where there
is a church subject to the bishop of the city.

Between this canon and the following, there is a reference to a former
council at Carthage forbidding bishops to sail, without a formal letter from
the Primate; and this said to be done when Caesarius and Atticus were
consuls, anno aerae vulg. 397, and there is mention of an embassy of two
bishops from a council of Carthage to the Emperors, to procure the
privilege of sanctuary to all impeached for any crime, if they fled to the
Church. This is said to be done when Honorius and Eutychianus were
consuls, anno aerae vulg. 398. And further, here is an account of a bishop
sent legate to Anastasius, Bishop of the Apostolical see, and Venerius of
Milan, to supply the African Church with men fit to be ordained. For
Aurelius complains that many Churches have not so much as one man, not
so much as an illiterate one, in deacon's orders, much less had they a
competent number of men for the superior dignities. He speaks of the
importunate clamors of many people, that were themselves almost killed, I
suppose, by some common pestilence.

In this council it was decreed that bishops should not travel by sea
without formed letters.

During the consulate of those illustrious men, Caesar and Atticus, on the
sixth before the Calends of July, at Carthage, it seemed good that no

1145

bishop should travel by water without "formed letters" from the Primate.
The authentic acts will be found by him who seeks them.

In this council, bishops whose names are set down hereafter were sent as
legates to the Emperor.

After the consulate of the most glorious Emperor Honorius Augustus for
the fourth time, and of the renowned Eutychian, on the fifth of the calends
of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the restored basilica. In this
council Epigonius and Vincent, the bishops, received a legation, in order
that they might obtain a law from the most glorious princes in behalf of
those taking refuge in the Church, whatever might be the crime of which
they were accused, that no one should dare to force them away.

In this council a legation was sent to the Bishops of Rome and Milan with
regard to children baptized by heretics, and to the Emperor with regard to
having such idols as still remained taken away, and also with regard to
many other matters.

After the consulate of the renowned Flabius Stilico, on the sixteenth of the
calends of July, at Carthage in the secretarium of the restored basilica.

When Aurelius, the Bishop, together with his fellow-bishops had taken
their seats, the deacons standing by, Aurelius, the Bishop, said: Your
charity, most holy brethren, knows fully as well as I do the necessities of
the churches of God throughout Africa. And since the Lord has
vouchsafed that from a part of your holy company this present assembly
should be convened, it seems to me that these necessities which in the
discharge of our solicitude we have discovered, we ought to consider
together. And afterwards, that there should be chosen a bishop from our
number who may, with the help of the Lord and your prayers, assume the
burden of these necessities, and zealously accomplish whatever ought to
be done in the premises, going to the parts of Italy across seas, that he
may acquaint our holy brethren and fellow-bishops, the venerable and
holy brother Anastasius, bishop of the Apostolic see, and also our holy
brother Venerius the Bishop of Milan, with our necessity and grief, and
helplessness. For there has been withheld from these sees the knowledge
of what was necessary to provide against the common peril, especially
that the need of clergy is so great that many churches are in such

1146

destitution as that not so much as a single deacon or even an unlettered
clerk is to be found. I say nothing of the superior orders and offices,
because if, as I have said, the ministry of a deacon is not easily to be had,
it is certainly much more difficult to find one of the superior orders. [And
let them also tell these bishops] that we can no longer bear to hear the
daily lamentations of the different peoples almost ready to die, and unless
we do our best to help them, the grievous and inexcusable cause of the
destruction of innumerable souls will be laid at our door before God.

1147

CANON LVII. (Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained
clergymen in the Catholic Church.

Since in the former council it was decreed, as your unanimity remembers
as well as I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists,
and not yet being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and
afterward when they had come to the Use of reason, had received the
knowledge of the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in
accordance with the ancient order) by the imposition of the hand, into the
Catholic Church of God spread throughout the world, that to such the
remembrance of the error ought to be no impediment to the reception of
the clerical office. For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to
be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments
of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy
and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is
placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the
name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as
the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: "One God, one faith, one baptism,"
and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered.
[Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their
error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church,
the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all
these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the
same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy
penalty of damnation. So that which to those who are in the truth
lighteneth to the obtaining of eternal life, the same to them who are in error
tends but to darkness and damnation. With regard then to those who,
having fled from error, acknowledge the breasts of their mother the
Catholic Church, who believe and receive all these holy mysteries with the
love of the truth, and besides the Sacraments have the testimony of a good
life, there is no one who would not grant that without doubt such persons
may be raised to the clerical office, especially in such necessity as the
present. But there are others of this sect, who being already clergymen,

1148

desire to pass to us with their peoples and also with their honors, such as
for the sake of office are converts to life, and that they may retain them
seek for salvation [i.e., enter the Church]. I think that the question
concerning such may be left to the graver consideration of our aforesaid
brothers, and that when they have considered by their more prudent
counsel the matter referred to them, they may vouchsafe to advise us what
approves itself to them with regard to this question. Only concerning
those who as children were baptized by heretics we decree that they
consent, if it seems good, to our decision concerning the ordination of the
same. All things, therefore, which we have set forth above with the holy
bishops, let your honorable fraternity with me adjudge to be done.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVII

Such as have been while children baptized by the Donatists may be
ordained should they repent, anathematize their heresy, and be otherwise
worthy.

Of the three Introductions to Carthaginian Councils which precede this
canon, the first refers to the synod held June 26, A.D. 397; the second to
that held April 27, A.D. 399; and the third to that of June 15 (or 16), A.D.
401.

The canon is Canon j. of the Synod of Carthage of June 15 (or 16), A.D.
401. The eight other canons of this synod follow in the African Code in
their own order.

JOHNSON

See Can. 47, which was made in a former synod.

1149

CANON LVIII. (Greek lxii.)

Of the remaining idols or temples which should be done away by the
Emperors.

Wherefore the most religious Emperors should be asked that they order
the remaining idols to be taken entirely away throughout all Africa; for in
many maritime places and in divers possessions the iniquity of this error
still flourishes: that they command them to be taken away and their
temples, (such as are no ornament, being set up in fields or out of the way
places) be ordered to be altogether destroyed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LVIH

The remains of the idols should be abolished altogether.

This is Canon ij. of the Synod of Carthage of June 15, A.D. 401.

1150

CANON LIX. (Greek lxiii.)

That clerics be not compelled to give testimony in public concerning the
cognizance of their own judgment.

It should be petitioned also that they deign to decree, that if perchance
any shall have been willing to plead their cause in any church according to
the Apostolic law imposed upon the Churches, and it happens that the
decision of the clergy does not satisfy one of the parties, it be not lawful
to summon that clergyman who had been cognitor or present, into
judgment as a witness, and that no person attached to any ecclesiastic be
compelled to give testimony.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LIX

A cleric who has decided a case shall not, if it be displeasing, be summoned
to a tribunal to give evidence concerning it; and no ecclesiastical person
shall be forced to give testimony.

This is Canon iij. of the Synod of Carthage, June 15 (or 16). A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

"According to the Apostolic law," viz., that of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:1,
2, etc. I follow the Greek scholia in rendering this canon. In Latin cognitor
is he that is solicitor, or advocate, rather than the judge who takes
cognizance.

1151

CANON LX. (Greek lxiii.)

Of heathen feasts.

This also must be sought, that (since contrary to the divine precepts
feasts are held in many places, which have been induced by the heathen
error, so that now Christians are forced to celebrate these by heathens,
from which state of things it happens that in the times of the Christian
Emperors a new persecution seems to have secretly arisen:) they order
such things to be forbidden and prohibit them from cities and possessions
under pain of punishment; especially should this be done since they do
not fear to commit such iniquities in some cities even upon the natal days
of most blessed martyrs, and in the very sacred places themselves. For
upon these days, shame to say, they perform the most wicked leapings
throughout the fields and open places, so that matronal honor and the
modesty of innumerable women who have come out of devotion for the
most holy day are assaulted by lascivious injuries, so that all approach to
holy religion itself is almost fled from.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LX

The Greek feasts must cease to be kept, because of their impropriety, and
because they seduce many Christians, moreover they are celebrated on the
commemorations of the martyrs.

This is Canon 4:of the Synod of Carthage, Aug. 15 (or 16), A.D. 401.

1152

JOHNSON

Bishop Beveridge and Tilius's edition of these canons, in Greek and Latin,
number the two preceding canons as I have done in the margin, with the
same figures [viz: 63]. I follow them in this error because by this means
the reader may more readily be referred from the Latin original and from
this English translation to the Greek.

1153

CANON LXI. (Greek lxiv.)

Of spectacles, that they be not celebrated on Lord's days nor on the
festivals of the Saints.

Furthermore, it must be sought that theatrical spectacles and the
exhibition of other plays be removed from the Lord's day and the other
most sacred days of the Christian religion, especially because on the
octave day of the holy, Easter [i.e., Low Sunday] the people assemble
rather at the circus than at church, and they should be transferred to some
other day when they happen to fall upon a day of devotion, nor shall any
Christian be compelled to witness these spectacles, especially because in
the performance of things contrary to the precepts of God there should be
no persecution made by anyone, but (as is right) a man should exercise the
free will given him by God. Especially also should be considered the peril
of the cooperators who, contrary to the precepts of God, are forced by
great fear to attend the shews.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXI

There shall be no theatrical representations upon Lord's days or feast
days.

This is Canon V. of the Synod of Carthage, June 15th, A.D. 401.

1154

CANON LXII. (Greek lxv.)

Of condemned clerics.

And this should be sought, that they deign to decree that if any clergyman
of whatever rank shall have been condemned by the judgment of the
bishops for any crime, he may not be defended either by the churches over
which he presided, nor by anyone whatever, under pain of loss both of
money and office, and let them order that neither age nor sex be received as
an excuse.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXII

No one shall justify a clergyman condemned by his own bishop.

This is Canon vj. of the Synod of Carthage, June 15 (or 16), A.D. 401.

1155

CANON LXIII. (Greek lxvi.)

Of players who have become Christians.

And of them also it must be sought that if anyone wishes to come to the
grace of Christianity from any ludicrous art (ludicra arte) and to remain
free of that stain, it be not lawful for anyone to induce him or compel him
to return to the performance of the same things again.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIH

Whoever has turned away from the stage to adopt an honest life, shall not
be led back thereto

This is Canon 7:of the Synod of Carthage, June 15 (or 16), A. D. 401.

JOHNSON

This canon is probably to be understood of slaves bought by their masters
for the service of the Circ, or Theater.

1156

CANON LXIV. (Greek lxvii.)

Of celebrating manumissions in church, that permission be asked from the
Emperor.

Concerning the publishing of manumissions in church, if our fellow
bishops throughout Italy shall be found to do this, it will be a mark of our
confidence to follow their order [of proceedings], full power being given to
the legate we send, that whatever he can accomplish worthy of the faith,
for the state of the Church and the salvation of souls, we shall laudably
accept in the sight of the Lord. All which things, if they please your
sanctity, pray set forth, that I may be assured that my suggestion has been
ratified by you and that their sincerity may freely accept our unanimous
action. And all the bishops said: The things which have been enjoined to
be done and have been wisely set forth by your holiness are pleasing to all.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIV

The Emperor 's permission should be sought to allow the public
manumission of slaves in church.

This is Canon viij. of the Synod of Carthage, June 15 (or 16), A. D. 401.

JOHNSON

It is certain, that in Italy, and some other parts of the Empire, slaves were
solemnly set at liberty by their masters, in the church and presence of the
bishop, from the time of Constantine, but it should seem this custom had
not yet obtained in Africa.

1157

CANON LXV. (Greek lxviii.)

Concerning the condemned bishop Equitius.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: I do not think that the case of Equitius should
be passed over in the legation, who some time ago for his crimes was
condemned by an Episcopal sentence; that if by any chance our legate
should meet him in those parts, our brother should take care for the state
of the Church, as opportunity offered or where he could, to act against
him. And all the bishops said: This prosecution is exceedingly agreeable to
us, especially as Equitius was condemned some time ago, his impudent
unrest ought to be repelled everywhere more and more for the good estate
and health of the Church. And they subscribed, I, Aurelius, the bishop of
the Church of Carthage, have consented to this decree, and after having
read it have signed my name. Likewise also signed all the other bishops.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXV

Equitius, who had been condemned by the judgment of the bishops, and
had behaved impudently against the ecclesiastical authority, ought to be
opposed.

This is Canon 9:of the Synod of Carthage, June 15 (or 16), A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

See Can. Afr., 78.

1158

In this council the letters of Anastasius the Roman Pontiff were read,
admonishing the Catholic bishops concerning the Donatists.

In the consulship of those most illustrious men Vencentius and Flavius, on
the Ides of September, at Carthage, in the secretarium of the restored
basilica. When we had been gathered together in council in the church at
Carthage and had taken our seats, bishops from all the African Provinces,
that is to say, Aurelius, the bishop of that see with his colleagues (just
who they were is made evident by their signatures) [the same bishop
Aurelius said]: When the letters of our most blessed brother and fellow
priest, Anastasius, bishop of the Church of Rome, had been read, in which
he exhorted us out of the solicitude and sincerity of his paternal and
brotherly love, that we should in no way dissimulate with regard to the
wiles and wickednesses of the Donatist heretics and schismatics, by which
they gravely vex the Catholic Church of Africa, we thank our Lord that he
hath vouchsafed to inspire that best and holy archbishop with such a
pious care for the members of Christ, although in divers lands, yet builded
together into the one body of Christ.

1159

CANON LXVI. (Greek lxix.)

That the Donatists are to be treated leniently.

Then when all firings had been considered and treated of which seem to
conduce to the advantage of the church, the Spirit of God suggesting and
admonishing us, we determined to act leniently and pacifically with the
before-mentioned men, although they were cut off from the unity of the
Lord's body by an unruly dissent, so that (as much as in us lies) to all
those who have been caught in the net of their communion and society, it
might be known throughout all the provinces of Africa, how they have
been overcome by miserable error, holding different opinions, "that
perchance," as the Apostle says, when we have corrected them with
gentleness, "God should grant them repentance for the acknowledging of
the truth, and that they might be snatched out of the snares of the devil,
who are led captive of him at his will."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVI

It seemed good that the Donatists should be treated kindly and with
leniency, even if they should separate themselves from the Church, so that
perchance through their respect f or our great gentleness they may be
loosed from their captivity.

The introduction refers to the Synod of Carthage of September 13,401,
and this canon is part of Canon j. of that Synod. We are indebted to the
Ballerini for collecting the acts of this Synod by a comparison of the
pseudo-Isidore, Dionysius, Ferrandus and the quotations contained in the
acts of the Synod of Carthage of 525.

1160

CANON LXVII. (Greek lxx.)

Of the letters to be sent to the judges, that they may take note of the
things done between the Donatists and the Maximianists.

Therefore it seemed good that letters should be given from our council to
the African judges, from whom it would seem suitable that this should be
sought, that in this matter they would aid the common mother, the
Catholic Church, that the episcopal authority may be fortified in the cities;
that is to say that by their judicial power and with diligence out of their
Christian faith, they enquire and record in the public acts, that all may
have a firm notion of it, what has taken place in all those places in which
the Maximianists, who made a schism from them, have obtained basilicas.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVII

The secular arm must be implored by synodal letters to assist our common
Mother the Catholic Church against those by whom the authority of the
bishop is despised.

This canon is the other half of Canon j . of the Synod of Carthage,
September 13, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

Maximianists were a sect bred out of the Donatists, and separating from
them.

1161

CANON LXVIII. (Greek lxxi.)

That the Donatist clergy are to be received into the Catholic Church as
clergymen.

It moreover seemed good that letters be sent to our brethren and
fellow-bishops, and especially to the Apostolic See, over which our
aforesaid venerable brother and colleague Anastasius, presides, that
(erceiSri in the Greek, quo in the Latin] he may know that Africa is in
great need, for the peace and prosperity of the Church, that those
Donatists who were clergymen and who by good advice had desired to
return to Catholic unity, should be treated according to the will and
judgment of each Catholic bishop who governs the Church in that place;
and, if it seem good for Christian peace, they be received with their
honors, as it is clear was done in the former times of this same division.
And that this was the case the example of the majority, yea, of nearly all
the African Churches in which this error had sprung up, testify; not that
the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done
away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to
come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no
breaking of unity. But those through whom Catholic unity was seen to
have been altogether perfected or assisted by the manifest winning of the
souls of their brethren in the places where they live, there shall not be
objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign
council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those
ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been
willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their
grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted
through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.

1162

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXVIH

Those ordained by the Donatists, even though their reception has been
forbidden by a foreign synod, since it is truly good that all should be saved,
if they correct themselves, let them be received.

BALSAMON

This canon is special, for it seemed good to the fathers that such of the
Donatists as came to the orthodox faith should be so received as to hold
the grade of their holy orders, even though a transmarine, that is to say an
Italian, council had decreed otherwise.

ARISTENUS.

Those Donatists who are penitent and anathematize their heresy are to be
allowed to remain in their proper rank, and be numbered among the clergy
of the Catholic Church, because Africa was laboring under a great
shortness of clergy.

This canon is Canon ij. of Carthage, Sept., A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

Whether the Donatists' clergy should be re-ordained was only a point of
discipline; for the Donatists retained Episcopacy. Therefore the African
fathers, as they leave other churches to their liberty, so at the same time
they declare that they would continue their old practice, and leave every

1163

bishop to act according to his own discretion in this matter. Probably, one
great motive, besides that of peace, which they had to this, was the great
scarcity of clergymen in Africa, of which Aurelius complains in his
speech, inserted into the Acts before Canon 77, and proposes that they
send to the bishops of Rome and Milan for a supply. And that this was
the true reason, does in some measure appear from the words of the Latin
canon at large, in which the occasion of this decree is said to be propter
necessitatem. And this is the most probable reason why it is left to the
discretion of the bishop, whether to admit Donatist clergymen as such, if
he had occasion for their service. And after all it is clear from this very
canon, that other churches had determined this point the contrary way.
Therefore Mr. Calamy exceeds when he says: "As for the Donatists, all
agree that their orders were acknowledged." Further, he would have it
thought probable that orders were not always conferred among the
Donatists by persons superior to presbyters. This he would infer from the
great number of the bishops of that faction in Africa, viz., 278, many of
which (says he) could be no more than parish ministers. But why so?
Were there not above four hundred Catholic bishops? And why not as
many of one side as the other? If our dissenters of any sort had fallen into
the Episcopal form of government, no question but they would have had a
bishop in every city at least, and equaled our church in the number of
prelates.

1164

CANON LXIX. (Greek lxxii.)

That a legation be sent to the Donatists for the sake of making peace.

It further seemed good, that when these things were done, legates should
be sent from our number to those of the Donatists whom they hold as
bishops, or to the people, for the sake of preaching peace and unity,
without which Christian salvation cannot be attained; and that these
legates should direct the attention of all to the fact that they have no just
objection to urge against the Catholic Church. And especially that this be
made manifest to all by the municipal acts (on account of the weight of
their documents) what they themselves had done in the case of the
Maximianists, their own schismatics. For in this case it is shown them by
divine grace, if they will but heed it, that their separation from the unity of
the Church is as iniquitous as they now proclaim the schism of the
Maximianists from themselves to be. Nevertheless from the number, those
whom they condemned by the authority of their plenary council, they
received back with their honors, and accepted the baptism which they had
given while condemned and cut off. And thus let them see how with
stupid heart they resist the peace of the Church scattered throughout the
whole world, when they do these things on the part of Donatus, neither do
they say that they are contaminated by communion with those whom
they so receive for the making of peace, and yet they despise us, that is
the Catholic Church, which is established even in the extreme parts of the
earth, as being defiled by the communion of those whom the accusers have
not been able to win over to themselves.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXIX

1165

It seemed good that legates be sent to preach peace and unity to the
Donatists who had been converted to the orthodox faith.

This canon is Canon iij. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

1166

CANON LXX. (Greek lxxiii.)

What clerics should abstain from their wives.

Moreover since incontinence has been charged against some clergymen
with regard to their own wives it has seemed good that bishops,
presbyters, and deacons should according to the statutes already made
abstain even from their own wives; and unless they do so that they should
be removed from the clerical office. But the rest of the clergy shall not be
forced to this but the custom of each church in this matter shall be
followed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXX.

Bishops, presbyters and deacons shall abstain for their wives or else be
removed from the ecclesiastical order. But the rest of the clergy shall not
be forced to the same: but let the custom be observed

This is Canon 4:of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

A repetition of Canon 25.

1167

CANON LXXI. (Greek lxxiv.)

Of those who leave in neglect their own people.

Moreover it seemed good that no one should be allowed to leave his chief
cathedral and go to another church built in the diocese, or to neglect the
care and frequent attendance upon his own cathedral by reason of too great
care for his own affairs.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXI

It seemed good that no bishop shall translate himself to another see,
leaving his own, nor that through a care for his own affairs he should
neglect his diocese.

This is Canon vj. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

See Canons 53, 56.

"Principalis Cathedra," his own Cathedral.

1168

CANON LXXII. (Greek lxxv.)

Of the baptism of infants when there is some doubt of their being already
baptized.

Item, it seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable
witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized
and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age,
able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such
children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should
deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the
Moorish Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the
barbarians.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXII

It seemed good that they should be baptized about whom there was an
ambiguity whether they had been baptized or no; test they might through
that doubt lose the divine ablution.

This is Canon vij. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

1169

CANON LXXIII. (Greek lxxvi.)

The date of Easter and the date of the Council should be announced.

Item, it seemed good that the day of the venerable Easter should be
intimated to all by the subscription of formed letters; and that the same
should be observed with regard to the date of the Council, according to the
decree of the Council of Hippo, that is to say the X. Calends of
September, and that it should be written to the primates of each province
so that when they summon their councils they do not impede this day.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIH

It seemed good that the day of the Holy Easter should be announced on the
day of the annual Synod, or on the tenth day before the calends of
September.

This is Canon 8:of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

See Can. 51.

"The time of council," i.e., of the national council at Carthage.

The Greek canon says f| rcpo SeKa koc^ocvScov Ee7txe(j,ppicov, and
Zonaras makes this the 21st of August, but he mistakes in his calculation.

1170

CANON LXXIV. (Greek lxxvii.)

That no bishop who is an intercessor is to hold the see where he is
intercessor.

Item, it has been decreed that it is not lawful to any intercessor to retain
the see to which he has been appointed as intercessor, by any popular
movements and seditions; but let him take care that within a year tie
provide them with a bishop: but if he shall neglect to do so, when the year
is done, another intercessor shall be appointed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIV

It seemed good that the bishop who had been called in as an intercessor, by
the zeal and dissensions of the people, should not be allowed to become the
occupant of its throne: but let a bishop be provided within a year, or else in
the next, year let another intercessor be appointed.

This is Canon IX. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

We here call this officer "Guardian of the spiritualities" in the vacancy of
the see.

1171

CANON LXXV. (Greek lxxviii.)

Of asking from the Emperors defenders of the Churches.

On account of the afflictions of the poor by whose troubles the Church is
worn out without any intermission, it seemed good to all that the
Emperors be asked to allow defenders for them against the power of the
rich to be chosen under the supervision of the bishops.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXV

That the bishop be not annoyed, let Defensors be appointed.
This is Canon X. of Carthage, September, 401.

JOHNSON

See note on Can. Chalcedon, 23.

1172

CANON LXXVI. (Greek lxxix.)

Of bishops who do not put in an appearance at Council.

Item, it seemed good that as often as the council is to be assembled, the
bishops who are impeded neither by age, sickness, or other grave
necessity, come together, and that notice be given to the primates of their
several provinces, that from all the bishops there be made two or three
squads, and of each of these squads there be elected some who shall be
promptly ready on the council day: but should they not be able to attend,
let them write their excuses in the tractory, or if after the coming of the
tractory certain necessities suddenly arise by chance, unless they send to
their own primate an account of their impediment, they ought to be
content with the communion of their own Church.

NOTES

Those who do not attend the annual synod, unless they be involuntarily
prevented, must be satisfied with the communion of their own churches.

This is Canon xj., of Carthage, September, 401.

JOHNSON

"Tractory" has several significations; here it seems to denote the written
return made by the Primate of the province to the synodical letter sent by
the Bishop of Carthage. In the acts inserted between canon 90th and 91st
"Tractoria" seems to denote the letter of the Primate to the inferior
bishops for choosing legates, if it do not rather denote the Bishop of
Carthage's circular- letter to all the primates, as it does in the next
paragraph.

1173

[The penalty in the last clause is] a very singular sort of censure, and very
moderate. See Can. 80.

1174

CANON LXXVII. (Greek lxxx.)

Of Cresconius.

Concerning Cresconius of Villa Regis this seemed good to all, that the
Primate of Numidia should be informed on this matter so that he should
by his letters summon the aforementioned Cresconius in order that at the
next plenary Council of Africa he should not put off making an
appearance. But if he contemns the summons and does not come, let him
recognize the fact that sentence should be pronounced against him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXVII

Unless Cresconius who has been summoned by letter to the Synod, shall
appear, let him know that he will have sentence given against him.

This canon was probably formerly an appendix (so Hefele thinks) to
Canon xj., of the Synod of Carthage of September 13, 401.

1175

CANON LXXVIII. (Greek lxxxi.)

Of the Church of Hippo-Diarrhytus.

It further seemed good that since the destitution of the Church of
Hippo-Diarrhytus should no longer be neglected, and the churches there
are retained by those who have declined the infamous communion of
Equitius, that certain bishops be sent from the present council, viz.:
Reginus, Alypius, Augustine, Maternus, Theasius, Evodius, Placian,
Urban, Valerius, Ambivius, Fortunatus, Quodvultdeus, Honoratus,
Januarius, Aptus, Honoratus, Ampelius, Victorian, Evangelus and
Rogation; and when those had been gathered together, and those had been
corrected who with culpable pertinacity were of opinion that this flight of
the same Equitius should be waited for, let a bishop be ordained for them
by the vote of all. But if these should not be willing to consider peace, let
them not prevent the choosing for ordination of a bishop, for the
advantage of the church which has been so long destitute.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXVIII

It seemed good that, after Equitius had been condemned by the universal
vote, a bishop of Hippo should be elected, and that they should in no way
impede the ordination of a prelate for that church.

This canon was likewise probably an appendix, to Canon xiij, of the
Synod of Carthage of September 13th, 401, according to Hefele.

1176

JOHNSON

See Can. Mr., 65.

Here the place of election and consecration seems to be the vacant see.

1177

CANON LXXIX. (Greek lxxxii.)

Of clerics who do not take care to have their causes argued within a year.

It was further decreed that as often as clergymen convicted and confessed
of any crime either on account of eorum, quorum verecundiae parcitur, or
on account of the opprobrium to the Church, and of the insolent glorying
of heretics and Gentiles, if perchance they are willing to be present at their
cause and to assert their innocence, let them do so within one year of their
excommunication; if in truth they neglect during a year to purge their
cause, their voice shall not be heard afterwards.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXIX

When a cleric has been convicted of a crime, if he says his cause should be
heard upon appeal, let the appeal be made within a year; after that the
appeal shall not be admitted.

This is Canon xiij. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

Though the Latin syntax of this canon is very confused, and, I am apt to
think, corrupted, yet it is evident enough, that this is the intention of it.

1178

CANON LXXX. (Greek lxxxiii.)

That it is not permitted to make superiors of monasteries nor to ordain as
clerics those who are received from a monastery not one's own.

Item, it seemed good that if any bishop wished to advance to the
clericature a monk received from a monastery not under his jurisdiction, or
shall have appointed him superior of a monastery of his own, the bishop
who shall have thus acted shall be separated from the communion of
others and shall rest content with the communion of his own people alone,
but the monk shall continue neither as cleric nor superior.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXX

Whoever shall receive a monk from a monastery not subject to his
jurisdiction, and if he shall ordain him to the clerical estate or shall appoint
him prior of his monastery, such an one shall be cut off from communion.

This is Canon 14:of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

See Canons 76 and 122 (123).

1179

CANON LXXXI. (Greek lxxxiv.)

Of bishops who appoint heretics or heathens as their heirs.

Item, it was ordained that if any bishop should prefer to his Church
strangers to blood relationship with him, or his heretical relatives, or
pagans as his heirs, he shall be anathematized even after his death, and his
name shall by no means be recited among those of the priests of God. Nor
can he be excused if he die intestate, because being a bishop he was bound
not to postpone making such a disposition of his goods as was befitting
his profession.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXI

Let a bishop be anathema if he make heretics and heathen his heirs.
This is Canon 1 5 :of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

There were in this age two written tables kept in every church, whereof
one contained the names of all eminent bishops and clergymen now living,
with whom that church held communion and correspondence; the other,
the names of all eminent bishops, and other men of their own or other
churches, now dead. The deacon rehearsed all the names, in both tables at
the altar, whenever the Eucharist was celebrated. These tables were by the
Greeks called Ai7tru%oc and by some English writers "diptychs." See Can.
of Peter of Alex., 14.

1180

CANON LXXXII. (Greek lxxxv.)

Of manumissions.

Item, it seemed good that the Emperor be petitioned with regard to
announcing manumissions in church.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXII

The imperial permission must be asked for the making of the manumission
of slaves in churches.

ARISTENUS.

This is the same as the sixty-fourth [Greek numbering] canon, and is there
explained.

This is Canon xvj. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

A repetition of Canon 64.

1181

CANON LXXXIII. (Greek lxxxvi.)

Of false Memories of Martyrs.

Item, it seemed good that the altars which have been set up here and there,
in fields and by the wayside as Memories of Martyrs, in which no body
nor reliques of martyrs can be proved to have been laid up, should be
overturned by the bishops who rule over such places, if such a thing can
be done. But should this be impossible on account of the popular tumult it
would arouse, the people should none the less be admonished not to
frequent such places, and that those who believe rightly should be held
bound by no superstition of the place. And no memory of martyrs should
at all be accepted, unless where there is found the body or some reliques,
on which is declared traditionally and by good authority to have been
originally his habitation, or possession, or the scene of his passion. For
altars which have been erected anywhere on account of dreams or inane
quasi-revelations of certain people, should be in every way disapproved
of.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIII

An altar in the fields or in a vineyard which lacks the reliques of the
martyrs should be thrown down unless it would cause a public tumult to do
so: and the same is the case with such as have been set up on account of
dreams and false revelations.

This is Canon xvij. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

1182

CANON LXXXIV. (Greek lxxxvii.)

Of extirpating the remains of the idols.

Item, it seemed good to petition the most glorious Emperors that the
remains of idolatry not only in images, but in any places whatever or
groves or trees, should altogether be taken away.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIV

Let all remains of idolatry be abolished whether in statues, or in places, or
groves or trees.

This is Canon xviij. of Carthage, September, A.D. 401.

JOHNSON

See Canon 58 (62.)

1183

CANON LXXXV. (Greek lxxviii.)

That by the bishop of Carthage, when there shall be need, letters shall be
written and subscribed in the name of all the bishops.

It was said by all the bishops: If any letters are to be composed in the
name of the council it seemed good that the venerable bishop who presides
over this See should vouchsafe to dictate and sign them in the name of all,
among which also are those to the episcopal legates, who are to be sent
throughout the African provinces, in the matter of the Donatists; and it
seemed good that the letters given them should contain the tenor of the
mandate which they are not to go beyond. And they subscribed: I,
Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage have consented to this decree
and having read it have signed it. Likewise all the rest of the bishops
subscribed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXV

It seemed good that whatever letters were to be sent from the Synod should
be written and subscribed by the bishop of Carthage in the name of all.

This is Canon 19:of Carthage, September, A. D. 401.

In this Council previous decrees are confirmed.

In the fifth consulate of the most glorious Emperors Arcadius and
Honorius, Augusti, the VI Calends of September, in the City of Milevis, in
the secretarium of the basilica, when Aurelius the bishop of Carthage had
taken his seat in plenary council, the deacons standing by, Aurelius, the
bishop, said: Since the body of the holy Church is one, and there is one
head of all the members, it has come to pass by the divine permission and

1184

assistance given to our weakness, that we, invited out of brotherly love,
have come to this church. Wherefore I beg your charity to believe that our
coming to you is neither superfluous, nor unacceptable to all; and that the
consent of all of us may make it manifest that we agree with the decrees
already confirmed by the Council at Hippo or which were defined
afterwards by a larger synod at Carthage, these shall now be read to us in
order. Then at last the agreement of your holiness will appear clearer than
light, if they know that the things lawfully defined by us in former
councils, ye have set forth, not only by your consent to these acts, but
also by your subscriptions.

Xantippus, bishop of the first see of Numidia said: I believe what pleased
all the brethren and the statutes they confirmed with their hands; we by
our subscribing our names shew that it pleases us also, and have confirmed
them with our superscription.

Nicetius, the bishop of the first see of Mauritania Sitifensis said: The
decrees which have been read, since they do not lack reason, and have been
approved by all, these also are pleasing to my littleness, and I will confirm
them with my subscription.

1185

CANON LXXXVI. (Greek lxxix.)

Of the order of bishops, that those ordained more recently do not dare to
take precedence of those ordained before them.

Valentine, the bishop, said: If your good patience will permit, I follow
the things which were done in time past in the Church of Carthage, and
which were illustrious having been confirmed by the subscriptions of the
brethren, and I profess that we intend to preserve this. For this we know,
that ecclesiastical discipline has always remained inviolate: therefore let
none of the brethren dare to place himself before those ordained earlier
than himself; but by the offices of charity this has always been shewn to
those ordained earlier, which always should be accepted joyfully by those
ordained more recently. Let your holiness give command that this order be
strengthened by your interlocutions. Aurelius, the bishop, said: It would
not be fitting that we should repeat these things, were it not for the
existence of certain inconsiderate minds, which would induce us to making
such statutes; but this is a common cause about which our brother and
fellow bishop has spoken, that each one of us should recognize the order
decreed to him by God, and that the more recent should defer to the earlier
ordained, and they should presume to do nothing when these have not
been consulted. Wherefore I say, now that I think of it, that they who
think they may presume to take precedence over those ordained before
them, should be coerced suitably by the great council. Xantippus, bishop
of the first see of Numidia, said: All the brethren present have heard what
our brother and fellow bishop Aurelius has said, what answer o we make?
Datian, the bishop, said: The decrees made by our ancestors should be
strengthened by our assent, so that the action taken by the Church of
Carthage in past synods should hold fast, being confirmed by the full
assent of all of us. And all the bishops said: This order has been preserved
by our fathers and by our ancestors, and shall be preserved by us through
the help of God, the rights of the primacy of Numidia and of Mauritania
being kept intact.

Of the archives and matricula of Numidia.

1186

Moreover it seemed good to all the bishops who subscribed in this council
that the matricula and the archives of Numidia should be at the first see
and in the Metropolis, that is Constantina.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVI

Thou shalt not prefer thyself to thine elders, but shalt follow them. For he
that spurns those who were before him should be frowned down upon.

The introduction belongs to the Synod of Milevis, of August 27, A.D.
402.

This canon (lxxxyj.) is Canon j., of the above named Synod.

JOHNSON

From this canon it appears that the primacy in Africa was ambulatory,
and belonged to the senior bishop of the province. If the primacy had been
fixed to the bishop of any certain city, as in other countries, there would
have been a salvo or exception for that bishop, as there is in the 24th
canon of the Synod of Bracara [Braga] in Spain, which orders that all
bishops take place according to their seniority, with a reserve to the
bishop of the metropolis. The bishop of Carthage was not included in this
canon; for it is evident that he had a precedence annexed to his see, and
that he was in reality a sort of patriarch. The reason why Numidia and
Mauritania are particularly mentioned is, that some disputes had been
started there on that subject.

1187

CANON LXXXVII. (Greek xc.)

Concerning Quodvultdeus, the bishop.

In the case of Quodvultdeus of Centuria, it pleased all the bishops that no
one should communicate with him until his cause should be brought to a
conclusion, for his accuser when he sought to bring the cause before our
council, upon being asked whether he was willing with him to be tried
before the bishops, at first said that he was, but on another day answered
that he was not willing, and went away. Under these circumstances to
deprive him of his bishoprick, before the conclusion of his cause was
known, could commend itself to no Christian as a just act.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVII

Since Quodvultdeus at first promised to come to our synod when his
opposer had asked that he be admitted, and afterwards withdrew, saying
that that was displeasing to him, he should be excommunicated, until the
cause is finished. But it is not just that he be deposed before sentence is
given.

This canon is part of Canon ij. of Synod of Milevis, A.D. 402.

1188

CANON LXXXVIII. (Greek xci.) Of Maximian, the bishop

But in the case of Maximian of Vagai it seemed good that letters be sent
from the council both to him and to his people; that he should vacate the
bishoprick, and that they should request another to be appointed for them.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXVIII

Let Maximian ofBagai be expelled from his church, and another be set in
his room.

This canon is remaining part of Canon ij., of the Synod of Milevis, A.D.
402.

1189

CANON LXXXIX. (Greek xcii.)

That bishops who are ordained shall receive letters from their ordainers
bearing the date and the name of the consul.

It further seemed good that whoever thereafter should be ordained by the
bishops throughout the African provinces, should receive from their
ordainers letters, written in their own hands, containing the name of the
consul and the date, that no altercation might arise concerning which were
ordained first and which afterwards.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON LXXXIX

Whoever is ordained in Africa let him have letters signed by the proper
hand of him that ordained him, containing the date and the name of the
Consul.

This is Canon iij. of Milevis, A.D. 402.

JOHNSON

It is evident from this canon that the church in this age followed the date
of the civil government, which was in the consulship of Caius and Titius,
as our civil date is in the 1st, 2d, 3d, etc., year of the reign of our King or
Queen.

1190

CANON XC. (Greek xciii.)

Of those who have once read in church, that they cannot be advanced by
others.

Item, it seemed good that whoever in church even once had read should
not be admitted to the ministry (clericatum) by another church.

And they subscribed: I, Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, have
consented to this decree, and, having read it, have signed it. Likewise also
the rest of the bishops signed.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XC

He who has only once read in a Church [i.e., diocese] shall not be admitted
into the clergy by another Church.

This is Canon 4:of Milevis, 402. There is set forth in this council what the
bishops did who were sent as legates across seas.

In the consulship of those most illustrious men, the most glorious
Emperor Theodosius Augustus, and Rumoridus, the VIII. Calends of
September, at Carthage, in the basilica of the second region, when Aurelius
the bishop had taken his seat in plenary council, the deacons standing by,
Aurelius, the bishop, said: From stress of circumstances, venerable
brethren, I, although so small, have been led to assemble you in council.
For a while ago, as your holinesses will remember, while holding a council
we sent our brothers as legates to the regions beyond seas. It is right that
these should at this meeting of your holinesses narrate the course of their
now finished legation, and although yesterday when we were in session
concerning this matter, besides ecclesiastical matters, we paid some
prolonged attention to what they had done, nevertheless it is right that
today the discussion of yesterday should be confirmed by ecclesiastical
action.

1191

Of the bishops of the African provinces who were not present at this
council.

The right order of things demands that first of all we should enquire
concerning our brethren and fellow bishops, who were to come to this
council either from Byzacena or at least from Mauritania, like as they
decreed that they would be present in this council. And when Philologius,
Geta, Venustianus, and Felician, bishops of the province of Byzacena had
presented and read their letters of legation, and Lucian and Silvanus,
legates of the province of Mauritania. Sitiphensis, had done the same, the
bishop Aurelius said: Let the text of these writings be placed in the acts.

Of the Byzacene bishops.

Numidius, the bishop, said: We observe that our brethren and fellow
bishops of the province of Byzacena and of the province of Mauritania
Sitiphensis have sent legates to the council; we now seek whether the
legates of Numidia have come, or at least of the province of Tripoli or of
Mauritania-Caesariensis.

Of the bishops of Mauritania Sitiphensis.

Lucian and Silvanus, the bishops, legates of the Province of Mauritania
Sitiphensis said: The tractory came late to our Caesarian brethren or they
would have been here; and they will certainly come, and we are confident
of their attitude of mind that whatever shall be determined by this council,
they without doubt will assent unto.

Of the bishops of Numidia.

Alypius, bishop of the church of Tagaste said: We have come from
Numidia, I and the holy brethren Augustine and Possidius, but a legation
could not be sent from Numidia, because by the tumult of the recruits the
bishops have either been prevented from coming or fully occupied by their
own necessary affairs in their sees. For after I had brought to the holy
Senex Xantippus your holiness' s tractory, this seemed good in the present
business that a council should be appointed, to which a delegation with
instructions should be sent, but when I reported to him in later letters the
impediment of the recruits, of which I have just spoken, he excused them
by his own rescripts. Aurelius, the bishop, said: There is no doubt that the

1192

aforesaid brethren and bishops of Numidia, when they shall have received
the acts of the council, will give their consent and will take pains to carry
into effect whatever shall have been adopted. It is therefore necessary that
by the solicitude of this see what we shall have determined be
communicated to them. Of the bishops of Tripoli.

This is what I could learn concerning our brethren of Tripoli, that they
appointed our brother Dulcicius as a legate: but because he could not
come, certain of our sons coming from the aforesaid province asserted that
the aforesaid had taken shipping, and that it was thought that his arrival
had been delayed by storms; nevertheless also concerning these matters, if
your charity is willing, this form shall be preserved, that the placets of the
council be sent to them. And all the bishops said: What your holiness has
decreed pleases us all.

1193

CANON XCI. (Greek xciv.)

Of holding meetings with the Donatists.

Aurelius, the bishop, said: What has come out in the handling of your
charity, I think this should be confirmed by ecclesiastical acts. For the
profession of all of you shews that each one of us should call together in
his city the chiefs of the Donatists either alone and with one of his
neighbor bishops, so that in like manner in the different cities and places
there should be meetings of them assembled by the magistrates or seniors
of the places. And let this be made an edict if it seems good to all. And all
the bishops said: It seems good to all, and we all have confirmed this with
our subscription. Also we desire that your holiness sign the letters to be
sent from the council to the judges. Aurelius, the bishop, said: If it seems
good to your charity, let the form of summoning them be read, in order
that we all may hold the same tenor of proceeding. All the bishops said:
Let it be read. Laetus the Notary read.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCI

Let each of the bishops meet with the leaders of the Donatists in his own
city; or let him associate with himself a neighboring bishop, that they
together may meet them.

This introduction together with the propositions of the different bishops
belongs to the Synod of Carthage of August, 403.

This canon (xcj.) is Canon j. of that synod.

1194

CANON XCII. (Greek xcv.) Form of convening the Donatists

That bishop of that church said: What by the authority of that most
ample see we shall have impetrated, we ask your gravity to have read, and
that you order it to be joined to the acts and carried into effect. When the
jussio had been read and joined to the acts, the bishop of the Catholic
Church, said: Vouchsafe to listen to the mandate to be sent through your
gravity to the Donatists, and to insert it in the acts, and to carry it to
them, and informs us in your acts of their answer. "We, sent by the
authority of our Catholic Council, have called you together, desiring to
rejoice in your correction, bearing in mind the charity of the Lord who
said: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of
God; and moreover he admonished through the prophet those who say
they are not our brothers, that we ought to say: Ye are our brethren.
Therefore you ought not to despise this pacific commonitory coming of
love, so that if ye think we have any part of the truth, ye do not hesitate
to say so: that is, when your council is gathered together, ye delegate of
your number certain to whom you intrust the statement of your case; so
that we may be able to do this also, that there shall be delegated from our
Council who with them delegated by you may discuss peacefully, at a
determined place and time, whatever question there is which separates
your communion from us; and that at length the old error may receive an
end through the assistance of our Lord God, lest through the animosity of
men, weak souls, and ignorant people should perish by sacrilegious
dissension. But if ye shall accept this proposition in a fraternal spirit, the
truth will easily shine forth, but if ye are not willing to do this, your
distrust will be easily known." And when this had been read, all the
bishops said: This pleases us well, so let it be. And they subscribed: I,
Aurelius, bishop of the Carthaginian Church, have consented to this
decree, and having read it, have subscribed it. Likewise also the rest of the
bishops signed.

This synod sent a legation to the Princes against tits Donatists.

1195

The most glorious emperor Honorius Augustus, being consul for the sixth
time, on the Calends of July, at Carthage in the basilica of the second
region. In this council Theasius and Evodius received a legation against the
Donatists. In this council was inserted the commonitorium which follows.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCII

What things should be said to the Donatists are these: "We greatly desire
to rejoice in your conversion; for we have been commanded to say even to
those not desiring to be our brethren, ' Ye are our brothers. ' We come
therefore to you and we exhort you that if you have any defense to make, ye
should appoint certain persons to whom this should be entrusted, who, at a
fixed time and place, shall urge your case; otherwise your distrust wilt be
thenceforward patent. "

This canon is Canon ij of the Synod of Carthage of August 25, A.D. 403.

1196

CANON XCIII. (Greek xcvi.)

The character of the Commonitory which the legates received against the
Donatists.

The Commonitorium for our brothers Theasius and Evodius, sent as
legates from the Council of Carthage to the most glorious and most
religious princes. When by the help of the Lord they are come into the
presence of the most pious princes, they shall declare to them with what
fullness of confidence, according to the direction of the council of the year
before, the prelates of the Donatists had been urged by the municipal
authority to assemble, in order that if they really meant their professions,
they might by fit persons chosen from their number, enter into a peaceful
conference with us in Christian meekness, and whatever they held as truth
they might not hesitate to declare it frankly; so that from such conference
the sincerity of the Catholic position, which has been conspicuous for so
long a time, might be perceived even by those who from ignorance or
obstinacy were opposing themselves to it. But deterred by their want of
confidence they scarcely ventured to reply. And forsooth, because we had
discharged toward them the offices which become bishops and
peacemakers, and they had no answer to make to the truth, they betook
themselves to unreasonable acts of brute force, and treacherously
oppressed many of the bishops and clergy, to say nothing of the laity.
And some of the churches they actually invaded, and tried to assault still
others.

And now, it behooves the gracious clemency of their Majesties to take
measures that the Catholic Church, which has begotten them as
worshippers of Christ in her womb, and has nourished them with the
strong meat of the faith, should by their forethought, be defended, lest
violent men, taking advantage of the times of religious excitement, should
by fear overcome a weak people, whom by argument they were not able to
pervert. It is well known how often the vile gatherings (detestabilis manus)
of the Circumcelliones have been forbidden by the laws, and also
condemned by many decrees of the Emperors, their majesties most

1197

religious predecessors. Against the madness of these people it is not
unusual nor contrary to the holy Scriptures to ask for secular [Ge'ioct;] in
the Greek] protection, since Paul the Apostle, as is related in the authentic
Acts of the Apostles, warded off a conspiracy of certain lawless men by
the help of the military. Now then we ask that there be extended to the
Catholic Churches, without any dissimulation, the protection of the
ordinum [i.e. companies of soldiers, stationed] in each city, and of the
holders of the suburban estates in the various places. At the same time it
will be necessary to ask that they give commandment that the law, set
forth by their father Theodosius, of pious memory, which imposed a fine
of ten pounds of gold upon both the ordainers and the ordained among
heretics, and which was also directed against proprietors at whose houses
conventicles were held, be confirmed anew; so that it may be effective
with persons of this sort when Catholics, provoked by their wiles, shall
lay complaint against them; so that through fear at least, they may cease
from making schisms and from the wickedness of the heretics, since they
refuse to be cleansed and corrected by the thought of the eternal
punishment.

Let request be also made that the law depriving heretics of the power of
being able to receive or bequeath by gift or by will, be straightway
renewed by their Piety, so that all right of giving or receiving may be taken
away from those who, blinded by the madness of obstinacy, are
determined to continue in the error of the Donatists.

With regard to those who by considerations of unity and peace are willing
to correct themselves, let permission be granted to them to receive their
inheritance, the law notwithstanding, even though the bequest by gift or
inheritance was made while they were yet living in the error of the
heretics; those of course being excepted, who under the stress of legal
proceedings have sought to enter the Catholic Church; for it may well be
supposed, that persons of this latter sort desired Catholic unity, not so
much from fear of the judgment of heaven, as from the greed of earthly
gain.

For the furtherance of all these things the help of the Powers (Porestatum)
of each one of the provinces is needed. With regard to other matters,
whatever they shall perceive is for the Church's interests, this we have

1198

resolved that the legation have full authority to do and to carry into effect.
Moreover it seemed good to us all, that letters from our assembly should
be sent to the most glorious Emperors and most Excellent Worthinesses,
whereby they may be assured of the agreement of us all that the legates
should be sent by us to their most blessed court.

Since it is a very slow business for us all to set our names to these letters,
and in order that they may not be burdened with the signature of each one
of us, we desire thee, brother Aurelius, that thy charity be good enough to
sign them in the name of us all. And to this they all agreed.

I, Aurelius, Bishop of the Church of Carthage have consented to this
decree and have subscribed my name. And so all the other bishops
subscribed.

Letters ought likewise to be sent to the judges that, until the Lord permit
the legates to return to us, they give protection through the soldiers of the
cities, and through the holders of the farms of the Catholic Church. It
ought also to be added concerning the dishonest Equitius, which he had
shewn by laying claim to the jus sacerdotum, that he be rejected from the
diocese of Hippo according to the statutes of the Emperors. Letters ought
also to be sent to the Bishop of the Church of Rome in commendation of
the legates, and to the other Bishops who may be where the Emperor is.
To this they assented.

Likewise I, Aurelius, Bishop of the Church of Carthage, have consented to
this decree, and having read it, have set my name to it.

And all the other bishops likewise subscribed.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIH

The Emperors who were born in the true religion and were educated in the
faith, ought to stretch forth a helping hand to the Churches. For the

1199

military band overthrew the dire conspiracy which was threatening Paul.
Here follows a brief declaration of what things were decreed in this Synod.

When Stilico a second time and Anthemius, those illustrious men, were
consuls, on the tenth before the calends of September, at Carthage in the
basilica of the second region. I have not written out in full the acts of this
council because they treat of the necessities of the time rather than of
matters of general interest, but for the instruction of the studious I have
added a brief digest of the same council.

1200

CANON XCIV. (Greek xcvii.) Summary of Chapters

That a free delegation be sent to the council from all the provinces to
Mizoneum. Legates and letters were ordered to be sent for the purpose of
directing the free legation: that became the unity had been made only at
Carthage, letters should also be given to the judges, that they might order
in the other provinces and cities the work of union to be proceeded with,
and the thanksgivings of the Church of Carthage for the whole of Africa
concerning the exclusion of the Donatists should be sent with the letters of
the bishops to Court (ad Comitatum).

The letters of Pope Innocent were read: that bishops ought not readily to
carry causes across seas, and this very thing was confirmed by the
judgment of the bishops themselves; that on account of thanksgiving and
the exclusion of the Donatists, two clerics of the Church of Carthage
should be sent to Court.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIV

It seemed good that letters be sent to the Magistrates that the Donatists be
expelled.

This introduction is taken from the Synod of Carthage of August 23, 405.
There is also added the introduction of the Synod of Carthage of June 13,
407.

In this synod certain things already decreed are corrected.

Under the most illustrious emperors Honorius for the Vllth time, and
Theodosius for the second time, the consuls being the Augusti, on the Ides
of July in Carthage in the basilica of the second region, when bishop

1201

Aurelius together with his other bishops had taken his seat, and while the
deacons stood by, he said: Since it was decreed in the council of Hippo,
that each year there should assemble a plenary council of Africa, not only
here in Carthage but also in the different provinces in their order, and this
was reserved that we should determine its place of meeting sometimes in
Numidia and sometimes in Byzacium. But this seemed laborious to all the
brethren.

1202

CANON XCV. (Greek xcviii.)

An universal council to be held only when necessary.

It seemed good that there should be no more the yearly necessity of
fatiguing the brethren; but as often as common cause, that is of the whole
of Africa, demands, that letters shall be given on every side to that see in
this matter, that a synod should be gathered in that province, where the
desirability of it induces; but let the causes which are not of general
interest be judged in their own provinces. NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCV

When general necessity so urges, letters are to be sent to the chief see, and
a synod held in a convenient place. But let ordinary causes be settled in
their own provinces.

This canon is Canon j. of the Synod of Carthage, A.D. 407.

JOHNSON

This canon is a tacit revocation of that clause for annual synods in the
18th canon, which was made in a former council.

1203

CANON XCVI. (Greek xcix.)

That from judges who have been chosen, no appeals may be taken.

If an appeal be taken, let him who makes it choose the judges, and with
him he also against whom the appeal is taken; and from their decision no
appeal may be made.

Concerning the delegates of the different provinces.

When all the delegates of the different provinces came together, they have
been most graciously received, that is those of the Numidians, Byzacenes,
Stifensian Moors, as well as Caesarians and Tripolitans.

Concerning the executors of Churches.

It has seemed good moreover that the appointment of five executors
should be asked for in all matters pertaining to the necessities of the
Church, who shall be portioned off in the different provinces.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVI.

If one party to a suit takes an appeal, and if both choose together a judge,
no further appeal shall be allowed

This canon is Canon ij. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1204

CANON XCVII. (Greek c.)

That there be sought from the Emperor the protection of Advocates in
causes ecclesiastical.

It seemed good that the legates who were about leaving, viz., Vincent and
Fortunatian, should in the name of all the provinces ask from the most
glorious Emperors to give a faculty for the establishment of scholastic
defensors, whose shall be the care of this very kind of business: so that as
the priests of the province, they who have received the faculty as
defensors of the Churches in ecclesiastical affairs, as often as necessity
arises, may be able to enter the private apartments of the judges, so as to
resist what is urged on the other side, or to make necessary explanations.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVII.

That there be asked of the Emperor the appointment of Patrons for
ecclesiastical heads, whose care it should be to defend the Church in its
affairs, and who as priests could easily refer what things were urgent.

(Greek ci.)

That the legation be free.

It seemed good that the chosen legates should have at the meeting freedom
of action (legationem liberam). The protest of the Mauritanian bishops
against Primosus.

It is evident that those of Mauritania Caesariensis gave evidence in their
own writings that Primosus had been summoned by the chiefs of the
Thiganensian city, that he should present himself to the plenary council
according to the imperial constitutions, and, when sought for, as was right,

1205

Primosus was not found, at least so the deacons reported. But since the
same Mauritanians petitioned that letters be sent from the whole synod to
the venerable brother, the aged Innocent, it seemed good that they should
be sent, that he might know that Primosus had been sought at the council
and not found at all.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME.

[Lacking.]

BALSAMON

The contents of this canon being special are useless, therefore no
explanation has been given.

This Canon is Canon iij. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

JOHNSON

See can. 75 and note on Can. Chalced., 23.

These officers [i.e. "defensors"] seem to be called "executores" in the acts
of synod just before this canon.

The "priest of the province" was one chosen out of the body of advocates
to be counsel to the province, to act and plead in their behalf; and that he
might do it more effectually he was allowed to have private conference
with the judge.

1206

CANON XCVIII. (Greek cii.)

Of the peoples which never had bishops.

It seemed good that such peoples as had never had bishops of their own
should in no way receive such unless it had been decreed in a plenary
council of each province and by the primates, and with the consent of the
bishop of that diocese to which the church belonged.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCVIII.

Whoso never heretofore had a bishop of their own, unless the general
synod of the Province shall agree to it, and the Primate, in agreement with
him to whom the province in which the Church is, is subject, shall not have
bishops of their own.

This canon is Canon 4:of the Synod of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1207

CANON XCIX. (Greek ciii.)

Of people or dioceses returned from the Donatists.

Such communities as have returned from the Donatists and have had
bishops, without doubt may continue to have them even without any
action of the councils, but such a community as had a bishop and when he
dies wish no longer to have a bishop of their own, but to belong to the
diocese of some other bishop, this is not to be denied them. Also such
bishops as before the promulgation of the imperial law concerning unity as
brought back their people to the Catholic Church, they ought to be
allowed still to rule them: but from the time of that law of unity, all the
Churches, and their dioceses, and if perchance there be any instruments of
the Church or things pertaining to its rights should belong to the Catholic
bishops of those places to whom the places pertained while under the
heretics, whether they be converted to the Catholic Church or remain
unconverted heretics. Whoever after this law shall make any such
usurpation, shall restore as is meet the usurped possessions.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XCIX.

Whoever are converted from the Donatists may retain their own bishops,
although they had them without the consent of the synod; and when the
bishop is dead, if they do not wish another to be substituted in his room,
but desire to place themselves under some other bishop, they shall be
allowed to do so. And such bishops as before the union have brought back
the people they ruled, let them still rule them. After the imperial Edict on
Unity every church must defend its own rights

This canon is Canon 5:of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1208

JOHNSON

"An imperial law concerning unity" i.e. For uniting all in the catholic faith,
and ejecting the donatistical bishops.

1209

CANON C. (Greek civ.)

Of the suggestion of Bishop Maurentius.

[Hefele says "The text of this canon is much corrupted and very difficult
to be understood." He gives as a synopsis, "The council appoints judges
in the affair of Bishop Maurentius." (Hefele, Vol. II, p. 443.)]

Johnson thus condenses and translates.

Bishop Maurentius having an information against him, lying before the
council, moves for a hearing; but the informers don't appear upon three
calls made by the deacons on the day appointed. The cause is referred to
Senex Xantippus, Augustinus, and five more summoned by the council,
the informers were to make up the number twelve.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON C

It is right that sentence be given on the subdeacons who are said to be
present from Nova Germania, who have thrice been sought and not found.
But out of regard to ecclesiastical gentleness, let some be sent to look into
the matter.

BALSAMON

The contents of this canon are of a private character, and therefore have
not been commented on.

This canon is Canon vj. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1210

JOHNSON

"Senex" i.e. Primate Xantippus, as is commonly believed. He and others
have this title frequently given them in the acts of these councils. See can.
8.

1211

CANON CI. (Greek civ. bis)

Of making peace between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria.

It seemed good that a letter be written to the holy Pope Innocent
concerning the dissension between the Churches of Rome and Alexandria,
so that each Church might keep peace with the other as the Lord
commanded.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CI

It seemed good to write to Innocent that the Roman and Alexandrian
churches might be at peace between themselves.

This canon is Canon 7:of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1212

CANON CII. (Greek cv.)

Of those who put away their wives or husbands, that so they remain.

It seemed good that according to evangelical and apostolical discipline a
man who had been put away from his wife, and a woman put away from
her husband should not be married to another, but so should remain, or
else be reconciled the one to the other; but if they spurn this law, they
shall be forced to do penance, covering which case we must petition that
an imperial law be promulgated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CII.

Married people who are loosed must remain unmarried or else be
reconciled, otherwise they shall be forced to do penance

This canon is Canon 8:of Carthage, A.D. 407, and is found in the Corpus
Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P. II., Causa xxxij., Quaest. vij., can.

v.

1213

CANON CIII. (Greek cvi.)

Of the prayers to be said at the Altar.

This also seemed good, that the prayers which had been approved in
synod should be used by all, whether prefaces, commendations, or laying
on of the hand, and that others contrary to the faith should not be used by
any means, but that those only should be said which had been collected by
the learned.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CIII

[The same as the canon, but omits the last phrase.]
This canon is Canon 9:of Carthage, A.D. 407.

JOHNSON

That is, such forms fitted for the present time or occasion, as our Church
uses in her Communion Office before the trisagium, on Christmas, Easter,
etc. These prefaces were very ancient in the Christian church. Prayers
used to recommend the catechumens, penitents, and dying souls to God's
protection were styled "Commendations."

1214

CANON CIV. (Greek cvii.)

Of these who ask from the Emperor that secular judges may take
cognizance of their causes.

It seemed good that whoever should seek from the Emperor, that secular
judges should take cognizance of his business, should be deprived of his
office; if however, he had asked from the Emperor an episcopal trial, no
objection should be made.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CIV

Let not him be a bishop who from the Emperor seeks a public judgment.
This canon is Canon X. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

JOHNSON.

See Canon Ant., 12.

1215

CANON CV. (Greek cviii.)

Of those who do not communicate in Africa and would go across seas.

Whoever does not communicate in Africa, and goes to communicate
across seas, let him be cast out of the clergy.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPIOME OF CANON CV.

Whoever is cut off from communion in Africa, and goes to parts across
seas that he may there communicate, is to be cast out of the clergy.

This canon is Canon j. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

1216

CANON CVI. (Greek cix.)

That those who are going to carry their case to court should be careful to
inform either the bishop of Carthage or the bishop of Rome.

It seemed good that whoever wished to go to court, should give notice in
the form which is sent to the Church of the city of Rome, that from thence
also he should receive a formed letter to court. But if receiving only a
formed letter to Rome, and saying nothing about the necessity which he
had of going to court, he willed immediately to go thither, let him be cut
off from communion. But if while at Rome the necessity of going to court
suddenly arose, let him state his necessity to the bishop of Rome and let
him carry with him a rescript of the same Roman bishop. But let the
formed letters which are issued by primates and by certain bishops to
their own clergy have the date of Easter; but if it be yet uncertain what is
the date of Easter of that year, let the preceding Easter' s date be set down,
as it is customary to date public acts after the consulship.

It further seemed good that those who were sent as delegates from this
glorious council should ask of the most glorious princes whatever they
saw would be useful against the Donatists and Pagans, and their
superstitions.

It also seemed good to all the bishops that all conciliar letters be signed by
your holiness alone. And they subscribed: I, Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage,
have consented to this decree, and having read it, now subscribe my name.
Likewise also the rest of the bishops subscribed.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CVI

Whoever from any necessity was going to court, must declare his intention
to the bishop of Carthage and to the bishop of Rome, and receive a letter
dimissory, and otherwise he shall be excommunicated.

1217

Whatever shall seem to the legates useful against the Donatists and
Greeks, and their superstitions, that shall be sought from the Emperor.

(Greek ex.)

Synod against the pagans and heretics.

In the consulship of those most illustrious men Bassus and Philip, the
xvith Calends of July, at Carthage, in the secretarium of the restored
basilica. In this council the bishop Fortunatian received a second
appointment as legate against the pagans and heretics.

Item, a council against the pagans and heretics.

In the consulship of those most illustrious men Bassus and Philip, the
3:Ides of October at Carthage, in the Secretarium of the restored basilica.
In this council the bishops Restitutus and Florentius received a legation
against the pagans and heretics, at the time Severus and Macarius were
slain, and on their account the bishops Euodius, Theasius and Victor were
put to death.

NOTES

This canon is Canon xij. of Carthage, A.D. 407.

JOHNSON

Of "Formal Letters" see Can. Ap., 10.

1218

CANON CVII. (Greek ex. continued.)

A Council concerning a bishop taking cognizance.

In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors Honorius for the Vllth
time and Theodosius for the Hid, Augusti, 17:Calends of July, a synod
was held at Carthage in the basilica of the second region. In this council it
seemed good that no one bishop should claim the right to take cognizance
of a cause. The acts of this council I have not here written down, because
it was only provincial and not general.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CVII

One bishop shall not claim for himself to take cognizance of a cause alone.

(Greek cxi.)

Synod against the Donatists.

After the consulate of the most illustrious Emperors Honorius for the
VHIth time and Theodosius for the IV th time, Augusti, 18:Calends of
July, at Carthage in the basilica of the second region. In this council the
bishops, Florentius, Possidius, Praesidius and Benenatus received legation
against the Donatists, at that time at which a law was given that anyone
might practice the Christian worship at his own will.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CVII

Let each one receive the practice of piety of his own free will.

1219

The two first introductions belong respectively to the Synods of Carthage
of June 16 and of October 13, A.D. 408.

Canon cvij . of the African code and that which follows it are the
introductions to the Synods of Carthage of June 15, A.D. 409, and of June
14, A.D. 410.

JOHNSON

See can. 10, 1 1, 12, 28, 79. Recognizes, a law of the Empire, that everyone
receive Christianity at his own free choice.

1220

CANON CVIII. (Greek cxii.)

Synod against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius.

In the consulate of the most glorious Emperors, Honorius for the Xllth
time and Theodosius for the VHIth, Augusti most exalted, on the Calends
of May, at Carthage in the secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus. When
Aurelius the bishop presided over the whole council, the deacons standing
by, it pleased all the bishops, whose names and subscriptions are
indicated, met together in the holy synod of the Church of Carthage to
define —

1221

CANON CIX. (Greek cxij. continued.)

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so
that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is,
he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but
by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CIX

Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and
through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Canon CVIII. is the introduction to the Synod of Carthage of May 1, A.D.
418; and Canon CIX. is Canon j. of that synod.

1222

CANON CX. (Greek cxii. bis)

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from
their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for
remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which
needs to be removed by the layer of regeneration, from whence the
conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of
sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man
sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed
upon all men in that all have "sinned," than the Catholic Church
everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule
of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no
sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in
order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by
regeneration.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CX

Whoso affirms that those newly born and baptized contract nothing from
Adam 's transgression, which needs to be washed away by baptism, is to be
execrated: for through one both death and sin invaded the whole world.

This is Canon ij. of Carthage, A.D. 418 [Greek Canon 112].

JOHNSON

1223

See Can. 63, 104, both which are double, as this likewise is in the old
Greek scholiasts.

[Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the
Lord, "In my Father's house are many mansions "is to be understood as
meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place,
or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have
gone forth from tiffs life without baptism, without which they cannot
enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For
after our Lord has said: "Except a man be born again of water and of the
Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven," what Catholic can
doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a
sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall
receive the left hand portion.]

NOTES

The foregoing, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. It
does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a
foot-note.

1224

CANON CXI. (Greek cxiij.)

That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also affords aid
that we sin no more.

Likewise it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of God,
by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for
the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins
in the future, let him be anathema.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXI

Whoever is of opinion that the grace of God only gives remission of those
sins we have already committed, and does not afford aid against sin in the
future, is to be twice execrated.

1225

CANON CXII. (Greek cxiij. continued.)

That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but also
inspires us with a desire that we may be able to accomplish what we
know.

Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ
our Lord helps us only in not sinning by revealing to us and opening to our
understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek,
what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that
through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we
should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says: "Wisdom
puffeth up, but charity edifieth" it were truly infamous were we to believe
that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but have it
not for that which edifieth, since in each case it is the gift of God, both to
know what we ought to do, and to love to do it; so that wisdom cannot
puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as of God it is written, "Who
teacheth man knowledge," so also it is written, "Love is of God."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXII

Whoever says that the grace of God is given to us only that we may know
what we ought to do and what to flee from, but not also that we may love
the thing known, and be able to accomplish it, let him be anathema.

Canon cxi. is Canon iij. of Carthage, A.D. 418, and Canon cxii. is Canon
4:of the same synod.

1226

CANON CXIII. (Greek cxiiii.)

That without the grace of God we can do no good thing.

It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification
was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to
perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though
grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even
without grace fulfill the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For
the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said:
"Without me ye can do nothing," and not "Without me ye could do it but
with difficulty."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXIH

Whoso preaches that without grace we could keep the commandments
although with difficulty, is to be thrice execrated. For the Lord says,
"Without me ye can do nothing. "

This is Canon V. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1227

CANON CXIV. (Greek cxv.)

That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: "If we say
that we have no sin we deceive ourselves."

It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If we shall say
that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,"
whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of
humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so,
let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, "But if we confess
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all iniquity," where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of
humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall say
we have no sins we shall extol ourselves, and humility shall have no place
in us;" but when he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us"
he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would
speak not that which is true but that which is false.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXIV

Whosoever shall interpret the saying of the Divine [i.e. St. John]: "If we
shall say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves " as not being really
true but as spoken out of humility, let him be anathema.

This is Canon vj. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1228

CANON CXV. (Greek cxvi.)

That in the Lord's Prayer the Saints say for themselves: "Forgive us our
trespasses."

It has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord's
prayer, the saints say, "forgive us our trespasses," they say this not for
themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest
who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of the saints can
say, "Forgive me my trespasses," but "Forgive us our trespasses;" so that
the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself; let
him be anathema. For holy and just was the Apostle James, when he said,
"For in many things we offend all." For why was it added "all," unless
that this sentence might agree also with the psalm, where we read, "Enter
not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man
living be justified;" and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: "There is
no man that sinneth not;" and in the book of the holy Job: "He sealeth in
the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity;"
wherefore even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times:
"We have sinned, we have done iniquity," and other things which there
truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be thought (as some have
thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people's sins,
for he said further on: "When I shall pray and confess my sins and the sins
of my people to the Lord my God;" he did not wish to say our sins, but
he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since he as a prophet
foresaw that those who were to come would thus misunderstand his
words.

1229

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXV

Whoso expounds this, "forgive us our trespasses" as speaking only of the
multitude and not of individuals let him be anathema: Since Daniel even he
can behold saying with the multitude "I confessed my sins and the sins of
my people. "

This is Canon 7:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1230

CANON CXVI. (Greek cxvii.)

That the Saints say with accuracy, "Forgive us our trespasses."

Likewise also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of
the Lord's prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our trespasses" are said by
the saints out of humility and not in truth let them be anathema. For who
would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say with
his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his heart that he had no
sins to be forgiven.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXVI. (Lacking.)

This is Canon 8:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1231

CANON CXVII. (Greek cxviii.)

Of peoples converted from the Donatists.

Item, it seemed good, since it was so decreed some years ago by a plenary
council, that whatever churches were erected in a diocese before the laws
were made concerning Donatists when they became Catholic, should
pertain to the sees of those bishops through whom their return to Catholic
unity was brought about; but after the laws whatever churches
communicated were to belong there where they belonged when they were
Donatists. But because many controversies afterward arose and are still
springing up between bishops concerning dioceses, which were not then at
all in prospect, now it has seemed good to this council, that wherever there
was a Catholic and a Donatist party, pertaining to different sees, at
whatever time unity has been or shall be made, whether before or after the
laws, the churches shall belong to that see to which the Catholic church
which was already there belonged.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXVII

Whenever conversions and unions of Donatists are effected, let them be
subject to that throne to which the Catholic Church which was formerly
there was subject.

This is Canon 9:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1232

CANON CXVIII. (Greek cxix.)

How bishops as well Catholic as those who have been converted from the
Donatists are to divide between themselves the dioceses.

So, too, it has seemed good that if a bishop has been converted from the
Donatists to Catholic unity, that equally there should be divided what
shall have been so found where there were two parties; that is, that some
places should pertain to one and some to the other; and let the division be
made by him who has been the longest time in the episcopate, and let the
younger choose. But should there be only one place let it belong to him
who is found to be the nearer. But should the distance be equal to each of
the two cathedrals let it belong to the one the people may choose. But
should the old Catholics wish their own bishop, and if the same be the
case with the converted Donatists, let the will of the greater number
prevail, but should the parties be equal, let it belong to him who has been
longest bishop. But if so many places be found in which there were both
parties, that an equal division is impossible, as for example, if they are
unequal in number, after those places have been distributed which have an
equal number, the place that remains over shall be disposed of as is
provided above in the case where there is but one place to be treated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXVIH

Those who have been converted from Donatus, let them divide the
dioceses; and let the senior bishop make the division, and the junior
choose which he will.

This is Canon 10:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1233

1234

CANON CXIX. (Greek cxx.)

That if a bishop shall possess a diocese which he has snatched from
heresy for three years, no one may take it from him.

Item, it seemed good that if anyone after the laws should convert any
place to Catholic unity and retain it for three years without opposition, it
should not be taken away from him afterwards. If however there was
during those three years a bishop who could claim it and was silent, he
shall lose the opportunity. But if there was no bishop, no prejudice shall
happen to the see, but it shall be lawful when the place that had none shall
receive a bishop, to make the claim within three years of that day. Item, if
a Donatist bishop shall be converted to the Catholic party, the time that
has elapsed shall not count against him, but from the day of his conversion
for three years he shall have the right of making a claim on the places
which belonged to his See.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXIX.

Whosoever shall convert a region to Orthodoxy and shall keep it converted
for three years, let him be without blame. But if the bishop converted from
Donatus within three years of its conversion seeks his diocese again, let it
be returned to him (ei evdyei, evayexco).

This is Canon xj. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1235

CANON CXX. (Greek cxxi.)

Of those who intrude upon peoples which they think belong to them,
without the consent of those by whom they are held.

Item, it seemed good that whatever bishops seek the peoples whom they
consider to pertain to their see, not by bringing their causes before the
episcopal judges, but rush in while another is holding the place, all such,
(whether said people are willing to receive them or no) shall lose their case.
And whoever have done this, if the contention between the two bishops is
not yet finished but still going on, let him depart who intruded without the
decree of the ecclesiastical judges; nor let anyone flatter himself that he
will retain [what he has seized] if he shall obtain letters from the primate,
but whether he has such letters or has them not, it is suitable that he who
holds and receives his letters should make it appear then that he has held
the church pertaining to him peaceably. But if he has referred any
question, let the cause be decided by the episcopal judges, whether those
whom the primates have appointed for them, or the neighboring bishops
whom they have chosen by common consent.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXX

Let no one seize for himself what he thinks belongs to him: but let the
bishops judge or where the Primate will give, or whom the neighboring
bishops shall give with his consent. But whosoever has received letters
from the primate concerning the keeping [of such regions and churches]
merely deceives himself.

This is Canon xij. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1236

1237

CANON CXXI. (Greek cxxii.)

Of those who neglect the peoples belonging to them.

Item, it seemed good that whoever neglect to bring the places belonging to
their see into Catholic unity should be admonished by the neighboring
diligent bishops, that they delay no longer to do this; but if within six
months from the day of the convention they do nothing, let them pertain
to him who can win them: but with this proviso however, that if he to
whom it seemed they naturally belonged can prove that this neglect was
intentional and more efficacious in winning them than the greater apparent
diligence of others; when the episcopal judges shall be convinced that this
is the case, they shall restore the places to his see. If the bishops between
whom the cause lies are of different provinces, let the Primate in whose
province the place is situated about which there is the dispute, appoint
judges; but if by mutual consent they have chosen as judges the
neighboring bishops, let one or three be chosen: so that if they choose
three they may follow the sentence of all or of two.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXI

If any neglect what belongs to their jurisdiction, let them be admonished;
and if they shall do nothing within a six month, let them be adjudged to him
who can win them. But if they have committed the neglect out of policy so as
not to irritate the heretics, and this shall appear to have been the case, their
sees shall be restored to them, by the judgment of the bishops either
appointed or elected.

This is Canon xiij. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1238

CANON CXXII. (Greek cxxiii.)

The sentence of the elected judges ought not to be spurned.

From the judges chosen by common consent of the parties, no appeal can
be taken; and whoever shall be found to have carried such an appeal and
contumaciously to be unwilling to submit to the judges, when this has
been proved to the primate, let him give letters, that no one of the bishops
should communicate with him until he yield.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXII

A judge chosen by both parties cannot be repudiated.
This is Canon 14:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

JOHNSON,

See Canons 76 and 80.

1239

CANON CXXIII. (Greek cxxiv.)

That if a bishop neglects his diocese he is to be deprived of communion.

If in the mother cathedrals a bishop should have been negligent against the
heretics, let a meeting be held of the neighboring diligent bishops, and let
his negligence be pointed out to him, so that he can have no excuse. But if
within six months after this meeting, if an execution was in his own
province, and he had taken no care to convert them to Catholic unity, no
one shall communicate with him till he does his duty. But if no executor
shall have come to the places, then the fault shall not be laid to the bishop.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXIH

A bishop who spurns the care of heretics, and if after being warned he
continues for six months in his contempt, and has no care for their
conversion, is to be excommunicated.

This is Canon 1 5 :of Carthage, A.D. 418.

JOHNSON

So [i.e. "Metropoles"] I turn matrices cathedrae. I know indeed there were
no fixed ecclesiastical metropoles, in Africa; but they had civil metropoles
called by that name, can. 86, which see.

Of these officers [i.e. "Executors "] see can. 97 (100).

1240

CANON CXXIV. (Greek cxxv.)

Of bishops who shall lie with regard to Donatists' communions.

If it shall be proven that any bishop has lied concerning the communion of
those [who had been Donatists], and had said that they had communicated
when he knew it was an established fact that they had not done so, let him
lose his bishoprick.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXIV

Whoso says that a man, whom he knows does not communicate, does
communicate is to be deprived of his episcopate.

This is Canon xvj. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

1241

CANON CXXV. (Greek cxxvi.)

That presbyters and clerics are not to appeal except to African Synods.

Item, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy
who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the
neighboring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their
bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But
should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not
carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their
provinces. But whoso shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall
be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXV

A presbyter and deacons, who has been condemned by his own bishop, let
him appeal to the neighboring bishops: but let them not cross the sea. In
Africa they shall be excommunicated.

This is Canon xvij. of Carthage, A.D. 418.

JOHNSON

A repetition of Canon 28.

1242

CANON CXXVI. (Greek cxxvii.)

That Virgins, even when minors, should be given the veil.

Item, it seemed good that whatever bishop, by the necessity of the
dangers of virginal purity, when either a powerful suitor or some ravisher
is feared, or if she shall be pricked with some scruple of death that she
might die unveiled, at the demand either of her parents or of those to
whose care she has been entrusted, shall give the veil to a virgin, or shall
have given it while she was under twenty-five years of age, the council
which has appointed that number of years shall not oppose him.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXVI.

Whosoever has veiled or shall veil a virgin before she is twenty-five years
of age (that is give her the habit, or clothe her), being forced thereto on
account of a powerful lover, or a ravisher, or deadly disease, provided
those,who have the charge of her so exhort, shall receive no damage from
the synod concerning that age

This is Canon xviij. of Carthage, A.D. 418. The reference to a former
canon is to Canon j . of the second series of the canons of the Synod of
Hippo in A.D. 393.

1243

CANON CXXVII. (Greek cxxviii.)

That bishops be not detained too long in council, let them choose three
judges from themselves of the singular provinces.

Item, it seemed good, lest all the bishops who are assembled at a council
be kept too long, that the whole synod should choose three judges of the
several provinces; and they elected for the province of Carthage Vincent,
Fortunatian, and Claras; for the province of Numidia Alypius, Augustine,
and Restitutus; for the province of Byzacena, with the holy Senex
Donatian the Primate, Cresconius, Jocundus, and Aemilian; for Mauritania
Sitephensis Severian, Asiaticus, and Donatus; for the Tripolitan province
Plautius, who alone was sent as legate according to custom; all these were
to take cognizance of all things with the holy senex Aurelius, from whom
the whole council sought that he should subscribe all things done by the
council whether acts or letters. And they subscribed: I, Aurelius, bishop of
the church of Carthage consent to this decree and having read it sign my
name. Likewise also signed they all.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXVII

Whenever the bishops who come to synod can remain no longer in
attendance, let three be chosen from each province.

This is Canon 19:of Carthage, A.D. 418.

JOHNSON

Two Sancti Senes mentioned, who we are sure were both primates. See
can. 100(104). See can. 14.

And here we have an ancient precedent for synods delegating their
authority to a committee, with the primate of all Africa at the head of it.

1244
Item, at this council there was present a legation from the Roman Church.

After the consulate of the most glorious emperors Honorius for the Xllth.
time and Theodosius for the VHIth., Augusti, on the III. Calends of June,
at Carthage, in the Secretarium of the restored basilica, when Aurelius the
bishop together with Faustinus of the church of Potentia in the Italian
province of Picenum, a legate of the Roman Church, Vincent of Calvita
(Culositanus), Fortunatian of Naples, Marianus Uzipparensis, Adeodatus
of Simidica, Pentadius of Carpi, Rufinian of Muzuba, Praetextatus of
Sicily, Quodvultdeus of Veri (Verensis), Candidus of Abbirita, Gallonian
of Utica, legates of the proconsular province; Alypius of Tagaste,
Augustine of Hippo Regia and Posidonius of Calama, legates of the
province of Numidia; Maximian of Aquae, Jocundus of Sufetula, and
Hilary of Horrea-Cascilia, legates of the province of Byzacena; Novatus of
Sitifi and Leo of Mocta, legates of the province of Mauritania Sitiphensis;
Ninellus of Rusucarrum, Laurence of Icosium and Numerian of
Rusgunium, legates of the Province of Mauritania Caesariensis, the judges
chosen by the plenary council, had taken their seats, the deacons standing
by, and when, after certain things had been accomplished, many bishops
complained that it was not possible for them to wait for the completion of
the rest of the business to be treated of, and that they must hasten to their
own churches; it seemed good to the whole council, that by all some
should be chosen from each province who should remain to finish up what
was left to be done. And it came about that those were present whose
subscriptions testify that they were present.

1245

CANON CXXVIII. (Greek cxxix.)

That those out of communion should not be allowed to bring accusation.

It seemed good to all, as it had been decreed by the former councils,
concerning what persons were to be admitted to bring accusations against
clerics; and since it had not been expressed what persons should not be
admitted, therefore we define, that he cannot properly be admitted to bring
an accusation, who had been already excommunicated, and was still lying
under that censure, whether he that wished to be the accuser were cleric or
layman.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXVIII.

One excommunicated is not to give witness

The Council of Carthage of 419 had at its first session on May 25th done
thus much.

But when it met again on the 30th of the same month, it continued the
code. The introduction in regard to this new session is this introduction.
The Canons then enacted were original, viz. numbers 128, 129, 130, 131,
132 and 133.

1246

CANON CXXIX. (Greek cxxx.)

That slaves and freedmen and all infamous persons ought not to bring
accusation.

To all it seemed good that no slaves or freedmen, properly so called, be
admitted to accusation nor any of those who by the public laws are
debarred from bringing accusation in criminal proceedings. This also is the
case with all those who have the stain of infamy, that is actors, and
persons subject to turpitudes, also heretics, or heathen, or Jews; but even
all those to whom the right of bringing accusation is denied, are not
forbidden to bring accusation in their own suits.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXIX.

A slave, and afreedman, and he who before was accused of any of these
crimes on account of which he is not admitted in court, and a player, and a
heathen, and a heretic, and a Jew

[There is no verb to finish the sentence.

However, this is intended as a continuation of the epitome of the former
canon, the words to be supplied being "are not to give witness."]

JOHNSON

See Can., Const., 6.

1247

CANON CXXX. (Greek cxxxi.)

That he who has failed to prove one charge shall not be allowed to give
evidence to another.

So, too, it seemed good that as often as many crimes were laid to clerics by
their accusers, and one of the first examined could not be proved, they
should not be allowed to go on giving evidence on the other counts.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXX

He who makes many accusations and proves nothing [is not to give
witness].

1248

CANON CXXXI. (Greek cxxxii.)

Who should be allowed to give evidence.

They who are forbidden to be admitted as accusers are not to be allowed
to appear as witnesses, nor any that the accuser may bring from his own
household. And none shall be admitted to give witness under fourteen
years of age.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXI

And whoso is not past fourteen years of age [is not to give witness]. An
accuser is not to produce witnesses from his own house.

JOHNSON.

See Can. 129.

1249

CANON CXXXII. (Greek cxxxiii.)

Concerning a bishop who removes a man from communion who says he
has confessed to the bishop alone his crime.

IT also seemed good that if on any occasion a bishop said that someone
had confessed to him alone a personal crime, and that the man now denies
it; let not the bishop think that any slight is laid upon him if he is not
believed on his own word alone, although he says he is not willing to
communicate with the man so denying through a scruple of his own
conscience.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXII

If a bishop says "someone has confessed to me alone a crime, " if the
someone denies it, he [i.e. the bishop] is not easily to be believed.

N.B. The word used for "someone" in the Epitome is neXaq, which
ordinarily means a "neighbor" but may mean "any one." Vide Liddell and
Scott.

1250

CANON CXXXIII. (Greek cxxxiv.)

That a bishop should not rashly deprive anyone of communion.

As long as his own bishop will not communicate with one
excommunicated, the other bishops should have no communion with that
bishop, that the bishop may be more careful not to charge anyone with
what he cannot prove by documentary evidence to others.

(Greek cxxxv.)

Bishop Aurelius said: According to the statutes of this whole assembled
council, and the opinion of my littleness, it seems good to make an end of
all the matters of the whole of the before-manifested title, and let the
ecclesiastical acts receive the discussion of the present day's constitution.
And what things have not yet been expressed (" treated of in the Greek)
we shall write on the next day through our brethren, Bishop Faustinus and
the Presbyters Philip and Asellus to our venerable brother and
fellow-bishop Boniface; and they gave their assent in writing.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXIII

If a bishop deprives of communion an unconvicted man, he shall likewise
be deprived of communion with his fellows.

JOHNSON,

Never was a more impartial law made, especially when all the legislators
were bishops except two. There were 217 bishops, and two priests, being
legates from the bishop of Rome.

1251

The Greeks make a canon of the ratifications, and reckon no more than
135. Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, subscribes first, and after him 217
bishops, then Asellus and Philippus, priests, legates of the church of
Rome. And it does not appear that any other priests were present in any
of the councils, mentioned in the body of this code; but there is several
times notice taken of the deacons who stood by.

1252

CANON CXXXIV. (Continuation of cxxxv. in the Greek.)

Here beginneth the letter directed from the whole African Council to
Boniface, bishop of the City of Rome, by Faustinus the bishop, and Philip
and Asellus the presbyters, legates of the Roman Church.

To the most blessed Lord, and our honorable brother Boniface, Aurelius,
Valentine of the primatial See of Numidia, and others present with us to
the number of 217 from the whole council in Africa.

Since it has pleased the Lord that our humility should write concerning
those things which with us our holy brethren, Faustinus a fellow-bishop
and Philip and Asellus, fellow presbyters, have done, not to the bishop
Zosimus of blessed memory, from whom they brought commands and
letters to us, but to your holiness, who art constituted in his room by
divine authority, we ought briefly to set forth what has been determined
upon by mutual consent; not indeed those things which are contained in
the prolix volumes of the acts, in which, while charity was preserved, yet
we loitered not without some little labor of altercation, deliberating those
things in the acts which now pertain to the cause. However the more
gratefully would he have received this news as he would have seen a more
peaceful ending of the matter, my Lord and brother, had he been still in the
body! Apiarius the presbyter, concerning whose ordination,
excommunication, and appeal no small scandal arose not only at Sicca but
also in the whole African Church, has been restored to communion upon
his seeking pardon for all his sins. First our fellow bishop Urban of Sicca
doubtless corrected whatever in him seemed to need correction. For there
should have been kept in mind the peace and quiet of the Church not only
in the present but also in the future, since so many evils of such a kind had
gone before, that it was incumbent to take care that like or even graver
evils should be prevented thereafter. It seemed good to us that the
presbyter Apiarius should be removed from the church of Sicca, retaining
only the honor of his grade, and that he should exercise the office of the
presbyterate wherever else he wished and could, having received a letter to
this effect. This we granted without difficulty at his own petition made in

1253

a letter. But truly before this case should be thus closed, among other
things which we were treating of in daily discussions, the nature of the
case demanded that we should ask our brothers, Faustinus our fellow
bishop, and Philip and Asellus our fellow presbyters, to set forth what
they had been enjoined to treat of with us that they might be inserted in
the ecclesiastical acts. And they proceeded to make a verbal statement, but
when we earnestly asked that they would present it rather in writing, then
they produced the Commonitory. This was read to us and also set down
in the acts, which they are bringing with them to you. In this they were
bidden to treat of four things with us, first concerning the appeal of
bishops to the Pontiff of the Roman Church, second that bishops should
not unbecomingly be sailing to court, thirdly concerning the treating the
causes of presbyters and deacons by contiguous bishops, if they had been
wrongly excommunicated by their own, and fourthly concerning the
bishop Urban who should be excommunicated or even sent to Rome,
unless he should have corrected what seemed to need correction. Of all
which things concerning the first and third, that is that it is allowed to
bishops to appeal to Rome and that the causes of clerics should be settled
by the bishops of their own provinces, already last year we have taken
pains to insinuate, in our letter to tile same bishop Zosimus of venerable
memory, that we were willing to observe these provisions for a little while
without any injury to him, until the search for the statutes of the Council
of Nice had been finished. And now we ask of your holiness that you
would cause to be observed by us the acts and constitutions of our fathers
at the Council of Nice, and flint you cause to be exercised by you there,
those things which they brought in the commonitory: that is to say, If a
bishop shall have been accused, etc. [Here follows Canon 7:of Sardica.]

Item concerning presbyters and deacons. If any bishop has been quickly
angered, etc. [Here follows Canon 17:of Sardica.]

These are the things which have been inserted in the acts until the arrival
of the most accurate copies of the Nicene Council, which things, if they
are contained there (as in the Commonitory, which our brethren directed to
us from the Apostolic See alleged) and be even kept according to that order
by you in Italy, in no way could we be compelled either to endure such
treatment as we are unwilling to mention or could suffer what is
unbearable: but we believe, through tile mercy of our Lord God, while

1254

your holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to suffer
that pride (istum typhum passuri). And there will be kept toward us,
what should be kept with brotherly love to us who are making no dispute.
You will also perceive according to the wisdom and the justice which the
most Highest has given thee, what should be observed, if perchance the
canons of the Council of Nice are other [than you suppose]. For although
we have read very many copies, yet never have we read in the Latin copies
that there were any such decrees as are contained in the commonitory
before mentioned. So too, because we can find them in no Greek text here,
we have desired that there should be brought to us from the Eastern
Churches copies of the decrees, for it is said that there correct copies of
the decrees are to be found. For which end we beg your reverence, that
you would design yourself also to write to the pontiffs of these parts, that
is of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to any
others also if it shall please your holiness, that thence there may come to
us the same canons decreed by the Fathers in the city of Nice, and thus
you would confer by the help of the Lord this most great benefit upon all
the churches of the West. For who can doubt that the copies of the Nicene
Council gathered in the Greek empire are most accurate, which although
brought together from so diverse and from such noble Greek churches are
found to agree when compared together? And until this be done, the
provisions laid down to us in the Commonitory aforesaid, concerning the
appeals of bishops to the pontiff of the Roman Church and concerning the
causes of clerics which should be terminated by the bishops of their own
provinces, we are willing to allow to be observed until the proof arrives
and we trust your blessedness will help us in this according to the will of
God. The rest of the matters treated and defined in our synod, since the
aforesaid brethren, our fellow bishop Faustinus, and the presbyters Philip
and Asellus are carrying the acts with them, if you deign to receive them,
will make known to your holiness. And they signed. Our Lord keep thee
to us for many years, most blessed brother. Alypius, Augustine,
Possidius, Marinus and the rest of the bishops [217] also signed.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXXV

1255

Urban, the bishop ofSiccas, is either to be excommunicated or else
summoned to Rome unless he corrects what should be corrected by him.

1256

CANON CXXXV. (Not numbered in the Greek.)

Here begin the rescripts to the African Council from Cyril bishop of
Alexandria in which he sends the authentic proceedings of the Nicene
Council, translated from the Greek by Innocent the presbyter: these letters
with the same Nicene council were also sent through the aforementioned
presbyter Innocent and by Marcellus a subdeacon of the Church of
Carthage, to the holy Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, on the sixth
day before the calends of December in the year 419.

To the most honorable lords, our holy brethren and fellow bishops,
Aurelius, Valentinus, as well as to the whole holy synod met in Carthage,
Cyril salutes your holiness in God.

I have received with all joy at the hands of our son, the presbyter
Innocent, the letters of your reverence so full of piety, in which you
express the hope that we will send you most accurate copies of the
decrees of the holy Fathers at the Synod held at Nice the metropolis of
Bithynia from the archives of our church; with our own certificate of
accuracy attached thereto. In answer to which request, most honorable
lords and brethren, I have thought it necessary to send to you, with our
compliments, by our son, Innocent the presbyter, the bearer of these,
most faithful copies of the decisions of the synod held at Nice in Bithynia.
And when ye have sought in the history of the church, you will find them
there also. Concerning Easter, as you have written, we announce to you
that we shall celebrate it on the xviiith before the calends of May of the
next indiction. The subscription. May God and our Lord preserve your
holy synod as we desire, dear brethren.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXV

According to your written request, we have sent to your charity most
faithful copies of the authentic decrees of the Synod which was held at Nice,
a city of Bithynia.

1257

1258

CANON CXXXVI. (Not numbered in the Greek but with a new

heading.)

Here beginneth the letter of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople to the same

To our holy lords, and rightly most blessed brethren and fellow bishops,
Aurelius, Valentine, and to the other beloved ones met together in the
Synod held at Carthage, Atticus the bishop.

By our son Marcellus the subdeacon, I have received with all thanksgiving
the writings of your holiness, praising the Lord that I enjoyed the blessing
of so many of my brethren. O my lords and most blessed brethren, ye
have written asking me to send you most accurate copies of the canons
enacted at the city of Nice, the metropolis of Bithynia, by the Fathers for
the exposition of the faith. And who is there that would deny to his
brethren the common faith, or the statutes decreed by the Fathers.
Wherefore by the same son of mine, Marcellus, your subdeacon, who was
in great haste, I have sent to you the canons in full as they were adopted
by the Fathers in the city of Nice; and I ask of you that your holy synod
would have me much in your prayers. The subscription. May our God
keep your sanctity, as we desire, most holy brethren.

1259

CANON CXXXVII. (Continuation of the last in the Greek.)

Here begin the examples of the Nicene Council, sent on the sixth day
before the calends of December in the year 419, after the consulate of the
most glorious emperor Honorius for the Xllth time, and Theodosius for
the IXth time Augustuses, to Boniface the bishop of the City of Rome.

We believe in one God etc.... the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes them.

To this symbol of the faith there were also annexed copies of the statutes
of the same Nicene Councils from the aforenamed pontiffs, in all respects
as are contained above; which we do not think it necessary to write out
here again.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXVII

The Canons of the Synod of Nice are sent, as they were decreed by the
Fathers, in accordance with your letters.

[Here follows the Nicene Creed in full.]

1260

CANON CXXXVIII. (Not numbered in the Greek.)

Here beginneth the epistle of the African synod to Pope Celestine, bishop
of the City of Rome.

To the Lord and most beloved and our honorable brother Celestine,
Aurelius, Palatinus, Antony, Totus, Servusdei, Terentius, Fortunatus,
Martin, Januarius, Optatus, Ceticius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincent,
Fortunatian, and the rest of us, assembled at Carthage in the General
Council of Africa.

We could wish that, like as your Holiness intimated to us, in your letter
sent by our fellow presbyter Leo, your pleasure at the arrival of Apiarius,
so we also could send to you these writings with pleasure respecting his
clearing. Then in truth both our own satisfaction, and yours of late would
be more reasonable; nor would that lately expressed by you concerning the
hearing of him then to come, as well as that already past, seem hasty and
inconsiderate. Upon the arrival, then, of our holy Brother and
fellow-Bishop Faustinus, we assembled a council, and believed that he was
sent with that man, in order that, as he [Apiarius] had before been restored
to the presbyterate by his assistance, so now he might with his exertions
be cleared of the very great crimes charged against him by the inhabitants
of Tabraca. But the due course of examination in our council discovered in
him such great and monstrous crimes as to overhear even Faustinus, who
acted rather as an advocate of the aforementioned person than as a judge,
and to prevail against what was more the zeal of a defender, than the
justice of an inquirer. For first he vehemently opposed the whole
assembly, inflicting on us many injuries, under pretense of asserting the
privileges of the Roman Church, and wishing that he should be received
into communion by us, on the ground that your Holiness, believing him to
have appealed, though unable to prove it, had restored him to communion.
But this we by no means allowed, as you will also better see by reading
the acts. After however, a most laborious inquiry carried on for three days,
during which in the greatest affliction we took cognizance of various
charges against him, God the just Judge, strong and long suffering, cut

1261

short by a sudden stroke both the delays of our fellow-bishop Faustinus
and the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was endeavoring to veil
his foul enormities. For his strong and shameless obstinacy was overcome,
by which he endeavored to cover, through an impudent denial, the mire of
his lusts, and God so wrought upon his conscience and published, even to
the eyes of men, the secret crimes which he was already condemning in
that man's heart, a very sty of wickedness, that, after his false denial he
suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes he was charged
with, and at length convicted himself of his own accord of all infamies
beyond belief, and changed to groans even the hope we had entertained,
believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots,
except indeed that it was so far a relief to our sorrow, that he had delivered
us from the labor of a longer inquiry, and by confession had applied some
sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, Lord and brother, it was
unwilling, and done with a struggling conscience. Premising, therefore, our
due regards to you, we earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do
not readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive
to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us, because
you, venerable Sir, will readily perceive that this has been prescribed even
by the Nicene council. For though this seems to be there forbidden in
respect of the inferior clergy, or the laity, how much more did it will this
to be observed in the case of bishops, lest those who had been suspended
from communion in their own Province might seem to be restored to
communion hastily or unfitly by your Holiness. Let your Holiness reject,
as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter with you of
presbyters likewise, and the inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance
of the Fathers hath the Church of Africa been deprived of this authority,
and the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of
inferior rank, but the bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans. For
they have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should
be terminated in the places where they arise; and did not think that the
grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any Province, for the bishops
of Christ (Sacerdotibus) wisely to discern, and firmly to maintain the
right: especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment
may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council
[i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual
with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops

1262

(sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a
sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send
thither the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or
advanced age, or any other impediment? For that your Holiness should
send ally on your part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers.
Because with regard to what you have sent us by file same our brother
bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we can find
nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that council, which we
have received from the holy Cyril our brother, Bishop of the Alexandrine
Church, and from the venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople, and
which we formerly sent by Innocent the presbyter, and Marcellus the
subdeacon through whom we received them, to Boniface the Bishop, your
predecessor of venerable memory. Moreover whoever desires you to
delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, do not comply, lest it
seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church
of Christ which exhibiteth to all that desire to see God the light of
simplicity and the day of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius
has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we
feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that through the
uprightness and moderation of your Holiness, Africa, without violating
brotherly charity, will by no means have to endure him any longer. Lord
and brother, may our Lord long preserve your Holiness to pray for us.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CXXXVIII

Those excommunicated by us, ye are not be willing to admit afterwards to
communion, according to the decree of the Nicene Synod. For Apiarius,
who restored by you, has resisted the Synod, and treated it with scorn, and
at length has been converted and confessed himself guilty with sighs and
tears.

1263

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE HELD UNDER

NECTARIUS

A.D. 394.

Elenchus.

Introductory Note.

Extracts from the Acts.

Ancient Epitome and Notes.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

The acts of this Council are found in Balsamon, page 761 of the Paris
edition, with Hervetus's translation. Labbe has taken Balsamon' s text and
inserted it into his Collection, from which the following translation is
made. There is another version extant in Leunclavius, Jus Groeco -Roman.
p. 247.

On September the twenty-ninth of the year 394, a magnificent church,
dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, built by the munificence of Rufinus the
Praetoreal prefect, and situated at a place called "the Oaks," a suburb of
Chalcedon, was consecrated. Most scholars have adopted Tillemont's
suggestion that this was the occasion which brought the patriarchs of
Alexandria and Antioch to Constantinople, and that occasion was taken
advantage of to hold a synod with regard to the dispute as to the see of
Bostra. At this council, in accordance with the canon of the Second
Ecumenical Council, adopted only a dozen years before, Constantinople
took the first place and its bishop presided, but so strong was the hold of
Alexandria that three centuries afterwards the Quinisext Synod speaks of
this council as held "under Nectarius and Theophilus." In passing it may
not be amiss to remark that St. Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and Flavian were present at this council! Well may Tillemont

1264

exclaim, "It is remarkable to see Theophilus there with Flavian, although
they were not in communion with each other."

1265

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE UNDER NECTARIUS OF
CONSTANTINOPLE AND THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA.

A.D. 394.

(Found in Beveridge, Synodicon. Tom. I., p. 678; Labbe and Cossart,
Concilia, Tom. II. col. 1151. Both taken from Balsamon.)

In the consulate of our most religious and beloved-of-God Emperors,
Flavius Arcadius Augustus, for the third time, and Honorius for the
second time, on the third day before the calends of October, in the
baptistery of the most holy church of Constantinople, when the most
holy bishops had taken their seats [here follow the names], Nectarius, the
bishop of Constantinople, said: Since by the grace of God this synod has
met in this holy place, if the synod of my holy brethren and fellow
ministers in holy things thinks good, since I see our brothers Bagadius and
Agepius, who contend between themselves about the bishopric of Bostra,
are also present, let these begin to set forth their mutual rights. And after
some things had been done by them for the sake of this cause, and it had
been shewn that the afore-named Bagadius was deposed by only two
bishops, both of whom were dead, Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: Not
on account of this judgment, but fearing henceforth for my whole life, I
desire the holy Synod to make a decree, whether or no, a bishop can be
deposed by only two bishops, and whether the Metropolitan is absent or
not, without prejudice to the present cause. For I fear that some, taking
their power from these acts, may dare to attempt such things. I wish
therefore your response.

Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, said: The most religious bishop
Arabianus hath spoken most laudably. But since it is impossible to go
backward in judgment, let us, without condemning that which is past,
establish things for the future. Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: The
synod of blessed fathers who met at Nice condemns what has taken place,

1266

for it orders that not less than three shall ordain, nor even so without the
metropolitan. But of the future I, full of fear, have made this question. I
would wish therefore that you would say clearly and without delay or
doubt, that a bishop could not, according to the decree of the Synod of
Nice, lawfully be ordained or deposed by two men.

And, after some further debate, Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria,
said: Against those who have gone forth, no sentence of indignation can be
pronounced, since those to be condemned were not present. But if any one
were to consider those who are to be deposed in future, it seems to me
that not only these ought to assemble, but so far as possible all the other
provincials, that by the sentence of many there may be rendered a more
accurate condemnation of him who is present and is being judged, and who
deserves deposition. Nectarius, the bishop of Constantinople, said: Since,
the controversy is concerning legitimate institutions and decrees, it follows
that nothing must be decreed on account of personal causes. Wherefore as
the most holy bishop Arabianus has said, wishing to make the future
certain, the sentence of the most holy bishop Theophilus hath
consistently and considerately decreed that for the future it shall be lawful
not even for three, far less for two bishops to depose him who is examined
as a defendant: but by the sentence of the greater synod and of the bishops
of the province, according to the Apostolic Canons. Flavian, the bishop of
Antioch, said: What things the most holy bishop Nectarius, and the most
holy bishop Theophilus have set forth are clearly right. And all the
ecclesiastics agreed with these.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME.

In future when a defendant is examined, he ought not to be deposed by two
or three bishops: but by the sentence of the greater Synod and of his own
provincials, as also the Apostolic Canons provide.

1267

BALSAMON.

As Bagadius, the bishop of Bostra, had been deposed by only two
bishops, the matter was considered in the synod at Constantinople,
whether that deposition had been rightly decreed. Agapius, the elect,
laying claim to it under the decision. And it was decreed that the
deposition was not canonical, since not two but a number should judge of
those accusations which are made against bishops. But know that this
constitution has no force today, for by the twelfth canon of the synod of
Carthage, which is much later, crimes charged against bishops are to be
judged of by twelve bishops. Read that canon, and know that this synod
was held in the time of the Emperor Arcadius, while that of Carthage was
in the days of Theodosius the younger.

Zonaras explains that by the words "have gone forth" in the speech of
Theophilus of Alexandria is to be understood have died.

1268

THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE HELD UNDER

CYPRIAN

A.D. 257.

Elenchus.

Introductory Note.

The remains of the Acts.

Notes, with St. Cyprian's Epistle to Januarius et al.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

It is commonly supposed by the commentators that what follows is the
"Canon of St. Cyprian" referred to in the Second canon of the Synod in
Trullo. Johnson thinks that that canon comes down to us as Canon
XXXIX. of the Apostolic Canons. Baronius agrees with Asseman in
thinking that from hatred to Rome the Greeks adopted the theory of the
non-validity of heretical baptism. "But," as Hefele well remarks, "in that
case they would have contradicted themselves."

Zonaras remarks: "This is the most ancient of all the synods. For that
which was held at Antioch in Syria concerning Paul of Samorata was more
ancient than the others, being holden in the time of the Roman Emperor
Aurelius, but this one is still earlier. For the great Cyprian finished his
martyr course in the time of the Emperor Decius: but there was a long
interval between Aurelian and Decius. For many emperors reigned after
the death of Decius, to whom at last Aurelian succeeded on the throne.
Therefore this is by far the most ancient of all synods. In it moreover
above eighty-four bishops were gathered together, and considered the
question as to what was to be done about the baptism of those who came
to the Church after abandoning their heresies, and of schismatics who
returned to the Church."

1269

1270

THE SYNOD HELD AT CARTHAGE OVER WHICH PRESIDED
THE GREAT AND HOLY MARTYR CYPRIAN, BISHOP OF

CARTHAGE.

A.D. 257.

(Found in Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. I., p. 365, and in Labbe and
Cossart, Concilia, Tom. I., col. 786.)

When very many bishops were met together at Carthage on the Calends of
September from the province of Africa, Numidia and Mauritania, with the
presbyters and deacons (the greater part of the people being likewise
present) and when the holy letters of Jubaianus to Cyprian had been read,
and Cyprian's answers to Jubaianus, concerning heretical baptisms, as
well as what the same Jubaianus afterwards wrote to Cyprian,

Cyprian said: Ye have heard, my dearly beloved colleagues, what our
fellow bishop Jubaianus has written to me, taking counsel of my littleness
concerning the illicit and profane baptisms of heretics, and the answer
which I made him; being of the same opinion as we have been on former
occasions, that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized and
sanctified with the Church's baptism. Moreover there has been read to
you also the other letter of Jubaianus, in which answering for his sincere
and pious devotion to our letter, not only he agrees therewith but offered
thanks that he has been so instructed by it. It only remains therefore that
we, each one of us, one by one, say what our mind is in this matter,
without condemning any one or removing any one from the right of
communion who does not agree with us.

For no one [of us] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops ], or
attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to
him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own
will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge
another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus

1271

Christ, who one and alone hath the power, both of advancing us in the
governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].

[The bishops then one by one declared against heretical baptism. Last of
all (col. 796)]:

Cyprian, the Confessor and Martyr of Carthage, said: The letter which
was written to Jubaianus, my colleague, most fully set forth my opinion,
that heretics who, according to the evangelical and apostolic witness, are
called adversaries of Christ' s and anti-Christs, when they come to the
Church, should be baptized with the one (unico) baptism of the Church,
that they may become instead of adversaries friends, and Christians
instead of Antichrists.

NOTES

ZONARAS.

These are the opinions therefore of the fathers, which assembled in council
with the great Cyprian: but they do not apply to all heretics nor to all
schismatics. For the Second Ecumenical Council, as we have just said [i.e.
in the Preface he has placed to the acts of the synod. Vide L. and C,
Cone, Tom. L, col. 801] makes an exception of some heretics, and give its
sanction to their reception without baptism, only requiring their anointing
with the holy chrism, and then anathematizing at the same time their own
and all heresies.

Balsamon does not print the acts of the Council at all but only the letter of
St. Cyprian (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. I., col. 799.) I have not
thought it worth while to place here the remarks of the eighty-six bishops,
cb<; jjt| dvocYKOuoci, oioc pr|8e evepycuoai, to quote Zonaras's words.

1272

BINIUS.

The allusion here is to the decree of Stephen, who was wont, according to
the custom of his elders, to be styled "Bishop of bishops," and because he
had acrimoniously threatened excommunication to all not agreeing with
him. On the disputed historical fact as to whether St. Cyprian died in or
out of the communion of the See of Rome the reader will do well to
consult Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome.

I place here St. Cyprian's Seventieth Epistle in the Oxford Translation
(Epistle of St. Cyprian, pp. 232 et seqq.). This letter is ad. dressed to
Januarius, Satterninus, etc., and is headed in Beveridge's Synodicon
"Canon I."

1273

EPISTLE LXX.

Cyprian, Liberalis, Caldonius, etc., to their brethren Januarius, etc.
Greeting.

When we were together in council, dear-est brethren, we read the letter
which you addressed to us respecting those who are thought to be
baptized by heretics and schismatics, whether, when they come to the one
true Catholic Church, they ought to be baptized. Wherein, although ye
yourselves also hold the Catholic rule in its truth and fixedness, yet since,
out of our mutual affection, ye have thought good to consult us, we deliver
not our sentence as though new but, by a kindred harmony, we unite with
you in that long since settled by our predecessors, and observed by us;
thinking, namely, and holding for certain, that no one can be baptized
without the Church, in that there is one Baptism appointed in the holy
Church, and it is written, the Lord himself speaking, "They have forsaken
me, the Fountain of living water, and hewed them out broken cisterns that
can hold no water." Again, holy Scripture admonishes us, and says, "Keep
thee from the strange water, and drink not from a fountain of strange
water." The water then must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest,
that it may be able, by Baptism therein, to wash away the sins of the
baptized, for the Lord says by the prophet Ezekiel, "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be cleansed from all your filthiness,
and from all your idols will I cleanse you; a new heart also will I give you,
and a new spirit will I put within you." But how can he cleanse and
sanctify the water, who is himself unclean, and with whom the Spirit is
not? whereas the Lord says in Numbers, "And whatsoever the unclean
person toucheth shall be unclean." Or how can he that baptizeth give
remission of sins to another, who cannot himself free himself from his own
sins, out of the Church?

Moreover, the very interrogatory which is put in Baptism, is a witness of
the truth. For when we say, "Dost thou believe in eternal life, and
remission of sins through the holy Church?" we mean, that remission of
sins is not given, except in the Church; but that, with heretics, where the

1274

Church is not, sins cannot be remitted. They, therefore, who claim that
heretics can baptize, let them either change the interrogatory, or maintain
the truth; unless indeed they ascribe a Church also to those who they
contend have Baptism.

Anointed also must he of necessity be, who is baptized, that having
received the chrism — that is, unction, he may be the anointed of God, and
have within him the grace of Christ. Moreover, it is the Eucharist through
which the baptized are anointed, the oil sanctified on the altar. But he
cannot sanctify the creature of oil, who has neither altar nor church.
Whence neither can the spiritual unction be with heretics, since it is
acknowledged that the oil cannot be sanctified nor the Eucharist celebrated
among them. But we ought to know and remember that it is written, "Let
not the oil of a sinner anoint my head;" which the Holy Ghost forewarned
in the Psalms, lest any, quitting the track, and wandering out of the path of
truth, be anointed by heretics and adversaries of Christ. Moreover, when
baptized, what kind of prayer can a profane priest and a sinner offer? in
that it is written, "God heareth not a sinner; but if any man be a
worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth."

But who can give what himself hath not? or how can he perform spiritual
acts, who hath himself lost the Holy Spirit? Wherefore he is to be
baptized and received, who comes uninitiated to the Church, that within
he may be hallowed through the holy; for it is written, "Be ye holy, for I
am holy, saith the Lord." So that he who has been seduced into error and
washed without should, in the true Baptism of the Church, put off this
very thing also; that he, a man coming to God, while seeking for a priest,
fell, through the deceit of error, upon one profane. But to acknowledge any
case where they have baptized, is to approve the baptism of heretics and
schismatics.

For neither can part of what they do be void and part avail. If he could
baptize, he could also give the Holy Ghost. But if he cannot give the Holy
Ghost because, being set without, he is not with the Holy Ghost, neither
can he baptize any that cometh: for that there is both one Baptism, and
one Holy Ghost, and one Church, founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter,
through an original and principle of unity; so it results, that since all among
them is void and false, nothing that they have done ought to be approved

1275

by us. For what can be ratified and confirmed by God, which they do
whom the Lord calls his enemies and adversaries, propounding in his
Gospel, "He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not
with me, scattereth." And the blessed Apostle John also, keeping the
commandments and precepts of the Lord, has written in his Epistle, "Ye
have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now are there many
Antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from
us, but were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt
have continued with us." Whence we, too, ought to infer and consider,
whether they who are the adversaries of the Lord, and are called
Antichrists, can give the grace of Christ. Wherefore we who are with the
Lord, and who hold the unity of the Lord, and according to this
vouchsafement administer his priesthood in the Church, ought to repudiate
and reject and account as profane, whatever his adversaries and Antichrists
do; and to those who, coming from error and wickedness, acknowledge the
true faith of the one Church, we should impart the reality of unity and
faith by all the sacraments of Divine grace.

We bid you, dearest brethren, ever heartily farewell.

1276

THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE SECOND COUNCIL OF NICE

A.D. 787.

Emperors — Constantine VI. And Irene.
Pope. — Hadrian.

Elenchus.

Introduction.

The Sacra to Hadrian.

The Sacra read at Session 1.

Extracts from the Acts, Session 1. Session II.

Session III. Session IV.

Session VI. containing the Epitome of the decree of the iconoclastic

Conciliabulum.

Excursus On the Conciliabulum.

The dogmatic Decree of the Synod. Excursus On the present teaching of

the Latin and Greek Churches on the subject of images.

The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.

Synodal Letter to the Emperors.

Excursus On the Two Letters of Gregory II. to the Emperor Leo.

Excursus On the Reception of the Seventh Council.

Excursus On the Council of Frankfort, A.D. 794.

Excursus On the Convention of Paris, A.D. 825.

Historical Note On the so-called "Eighth General Council" and

subsequent councils.

1277
INTRODUCTION.

Gibbon thus describes the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Christian
Church: "The decrees were framed by the president Tarasius, and ratified
by the acclamations and subscriptions of three hundred and fifty bishops.
They unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to
Scripture and reason, to the Fathers and councils of the Church; but they
hesitated whether that worship be relative or direct; whether the godhead
and the figure of Christ be entitled to the same mode of adoration. Of this
second Nicene Council the acts are still extant; a curious monument of
superstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly." (Decline and Fall,
chapter xlix.)

And this has been read as history, and has passed as such in the estimation
of the overwhelming majority of educated English-speaking people for
several generations, and yet it is a statement as full of absolute and
inexcusable errors as the passage in another part of the same work which
the late Bishop Lightfoot so unmercifully exposed, and which the most
recent editor, Bury, has taken pains to correct.

I do not know whether it is worth while to do so, but perhaps it may be as
well to state, that whatever may be his opinion of the truths of the
conclusions arrived at by the council, no impartial reader can fail to
recognize the profound learning of the assembly, the singular acumen
displayed in the arguments employed, and the remarkable freedom from
what Gibbon and many others would consider "superstition." So radical is
this that Gibbon would have noticed it had he read the acts of the synod
he is criticizing (which we have good reason for believing that he never
did). There he would have found the Patriarch declaring that at that time
the venerable images worked no miracles, a statement that would be made
by no prelate of the Latin or Greek Church today, even in the light of the
nineteenth century.

As I have noted in the previous pages my task is not that of a
controversialist. To me at present it is a matter of no concern whether the
decision of the council is true or false. I shall therefore strictly confine
myself to two points 1. That the Council was Ecumenical. 2. What its

1278

decision was; explaining the technical meaning of the Greek words
employed during this controversy and finally incorporated in the decree.

1. This Council was certainly Ecumenical.

It seems strange that any person familiar with the facts of the ease could
for a moment entertain a doubt as to the ecumenical character of the
council which met at Nice in 787.

(a) It was called by the Roman Emperors to be an Ecumenical Council.
Vide letter of Tarasius.

(b) It was called with the approval of the Pope (not like I. Constantinople,
without his knowledge; or like Chalcedon, contrary to his expressed wish),
and two papal legates were present at its deliberations and signed its
decrees.

(c) The Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person.

(d) The other Patriarchates were represented, although on account of the
Moslem tyranny the Patriarchs could not attend in person, nor could they
even send proctors.

(e) The decrees were adopted by an unanimous vote of the three hundred
and fifty bishops.

(f) They were immediately received in all the four Eastern Patriarchates.

(g) They were immediately accepted by the Pope.

(h) For a full thousand years they have been received by the Latin and
Greek Churches with but a few exceptions altogether insignificant, save
the Frankish kingdom.

In the face of such undisputed facts, it would be strange were anyone to
doubt the historical fact that the Second Council of Nice is one of the
Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, and indeed so far as I am
aware none have done so except such as have been forced into this
position for doctrinal consistency.

Nor have all Protestants allowed their judgment to be warped in this
matter. As a sample I may quote from that stanch Protestant whom Queen

1279

Elizabeth appointed a chaplain in ordinary in 1598, and who in 1610 was
made Dean of Gloucester, the profoundly learned Richard Field. In his
famous "Book of the Church" (Book V. chap, lj.), he says: "These" [six,
which he had just described] "were all the lawful General Councils (lawful,
I say, both in their beginning and proceeding and continuance) that ever
were holden in the Christian Church, touching matters of faith. For the
Seventh, which is the Second of Nice, was not called about any question of
faith but of manners. So that there are but Seven General Councils that the
whole Church acknowledgeth, called to determine matters of faith and
manners. For the rest that were holden afterwards, which our adversaries
[the Roman Catholics] would have to be acknowledged general, they are
not only rejected by us but by the Grecians also, as not general, but
patriarchal only, etc."

Of course there are a number of writers (principally of the Anglican
Communion), who have argued thus: "The doctrine taught by the Second
Council of Nice we reject, ergo it cannot have been an Ecumenical Council
of the Catholic Church." And they have then gone on to prove their
conclusion. With such writers I have no concern. My simple contention is
that the Council is admitted by all to have been representative of East and
West, and to have been accepted for a thousand years as such, and to be
today accepted as Ecumenical by the Latin and Greek Churches. If its
doctrines are false, then one of the Ecumenical Synods set forth false
doctrine, a statement which should give no trouble, so far as I can
understand, to anyone who does not hold the necessary infallibility of
Ecumenical Synods.

Among those who have argued against the ecumenical character of the
Seventh Council there are, however, two whose eminent learning and high
standing demand a consideration of anything they may advance on any
subject they treat of, these are the Rev. John Mason Neale and the Rev.
Sir William Palmer.

Dr. Neale considers the matter at some length in a foot-note to his History
of the Eastern Church (Vol. II., pp. 132-135), but I think it not improper
to remark that the author ingenuously confesses in this very note that if he
came to the conclusion that the council was ecumenical, "it would be

1280

difficult to clear our own Church from the charge of heresy." Entertaining
such an opinion at the start, his conclusion could hardly be unbiassed.

The only argument which is advanced in this note which is different from
those of other opponents of the Council, is that it had not the
authentication of a subsequent Ecumenical Synod. The argument seems to
me so extraordinary that I think Dr. Neale's exact words should be cited:
"In the first place, we may remark that the Second Council of Nicaea
wants one mark of authority, shared according to the more general belief
by the six — according to the opinions which an English Churchman must
necessarily embrace by the first five Councils — its recognition as
Ecumenical by a later Council undoubtedly so." But surely this involves
an absurdity, for if it is not known whether the last one is ecumenical or
no, how will its approval of the next to the last give that council any
certainty? If III. Constantinople is doubtful being the sixth, because there
is no seventh to have confirmed it; then II. Constantinople, the fifth, is
doubtful because it has only been confirmed by a synod itself doubtful and
so on, which is absurd. The test of the ecumenicity of a council is not its
acceptance by a subsequent synod, but its acceptance by the whole
Church, and this Dr. Neale frankly confesses is the case with regard to II.
Nice: "It cannot be denied," he admits, "that at the present day both the
Eastern and the Latin Churches receive it as Ecumenical" (p. 132). He
might have added, "and have done so without any controversy on the
subject for nearly a thousand years."

I do not think there is any need of my delaying longer over Dr. Neale's
note, which I have noticed at all only because of his profound scholarship,
and not because on this particular point I thought he had thrown any new
light upon the matter, nor urged any argument really calling for an answer.

Sir William Palmer' s argument (A Treatise on the Church of Christ, Pt.
IV., Chapter X., Sect. IV.) is one of much greater force, and needs an
answer. He points out how, long after the Council of Nice, the number of
the General Councils was still spoken of as being Six, and that in some
instances this council is referred to as the "pseudo" General Council of
Nice. Now at first sight this argument seems to be of great force. But upon
further consideration it will be seen to be after all of no great weight. We
may not be able to explain, nor are we called upon to do so, why in certain

1281

cases writers chose still to speak of Six instead of Seven General Councils,
but we would point out that the same continuance of the old expression
can be found with regard to others of the General Councils. For example,
St. Gregory the Great says that he "revered the four Ecumenical Councils
as he did the four Gospels," but the fifth Ecumenical Synod had been held
a number of years before. Will anyone pretend from this to draw the
conclusion that at that time the Ecumenical character of the Fifth Synod
(II. Constantinople) was not recognized at Rome? Moreover, among the
instances cited (and there are but a very few all told) one of them is fatal to
the argument. For if Pope Hadrian in 87 1 still speaks of only six
Ecumenical Synods, he omits two (according to Roman count), for this
date is after the synod which deposed Photius — a synod rejected indeed
afterwards by the Greeks, but always accepted by the Latins as the Eighth
of the Ecumenical Councils. Would Sir William pretend for an instant that
Hadrian and the Church of Rome did not recognize that Council as
Ecumenical and as the Eighth Synod? He could not, for on page 208 he
ingenuously confesses that that Council "had been approved and
confirmed by that Pope."

But after all, the contention fails in its very beginning, for Sir William
frankly recognizes that the Popes from the first espoused the cause of the
council and were ready to defend it. Now this involved the
acknowledgment of its ecumenical character, for it was called as an
Ecumenical Synod, this we expressly learn from the letter of Tarasius to
the other Eastern Patriarchs (Labbe, Cone, Tom. VII., col. 165), from the
letter of the Emperor and Empress to the bishops throughout the empire
(L. and C, Cone, Tom. VII., col. 53), and (above all) from the witness of
the Council itself, assuming the style of the "Holy Ecumenical Synod." In
the face of such evidence any further proof is surely uncalled for.

We come now to the only other argument brought against the ecumenical
character of this council — to wit, that many writers, even until after the
beginning of the XVIth century, call the Seventh a "pseudo-Council." But
surely this proves too much, for it would seem to imply that even down
to that time the cultus of images was not established in the West, a
proposition too ridiculous to be defended by anyone. It is indeed worthy
of notice that all the authors cited are Frankish, the Annales Francorum
(A.D. 808) in the continuation of the same (A.D. 814), in an anonymous

1282

life of Charlemagne, and the Annales written after 819; Eginhard in his
Annates Francorum (A.D. 829); the Gallican bishops at Paris, 824;
Hincmar of Rheims; Ado, bishop of Vienne (died 875); Anastasius
acknowledges that the French had not accepted the veneration of the
sacred images; The Chronicle of St. Bertinus (after 884); The Annales
Francorum after the council still speak of it as pseudo; Regino, Abbot of
Pram (circa 910); the Chronicle of St. Bertinus, of the Xth Century.
Hermanus Contractus: the author who continued the Gestes Francorum to
A.D. 1165; Roger Hoverden (A.D. 1204); Conrade a Lichtenan, Abbot of
Urspurg (circa 1230); Matthew of Westminster.

No doubt to these, given in Palmer, who has made much use of Lannoy,
others could be added; but they are enough to shew that the council was
very little known, and that none of these writers had ever seen its acts.

Sir William is of opinion that by what precedes in his book he has "proved
that for at least five centuries and a half the Council of Nice remained
rejected in the Western Church." I venture to think that the most he has
proved is that during that period of time he has been able to find fifteen
individuals who for one reason or another wrote rejecting that council, that
is to say three in a century, a number which does not seem quite sufficient
to make the foundation of so considerable a generalization as "the Western
Church." The further conclusion of Sir William, I think, every scholar will
reject as simply preposterous, vie.: "In fact the doctrine of the adoration
of images [by which he means the doctrine taught by the II. Council of
Nice] was never received in the West, except where the influence of the
Roman See was predominant" (p. 211).

Sir William is always, however, honest, and the following quotation which
he himself makes from Cardinal Bellarmine may well go far toward
explaining the erroneous or imperfect statements he has so learnedly and
laboriously gathered together. "Bellarmine says: 'It is very credible that St.
Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and other scholastic doctors had not seen the
second synod of Nice, nor the eighth general synod;' he adds that they
'were long in obscurity, and were first published in our own age, as may
be known from their not being extant in the older volumes of the councils;
and St. Thomas and the other ancient schoolmen never make any mention
of this Nicene Synod.' (Bell. De Imag. Sanct. Lib. II. cap. xxij.)"

1283

2. What the Council decreed.

The council decreed that similar veneration and honor should be paid to
the representations of the Lord and of the Saints as was accustomed to be
paid to the "laurata" and tablets representing the Christian emperors, to
wit, that they should be bowed to, and saluted with kisses, and attended
with lights and the offering of incense. But the Council was most explicit
in declaring that this was merely a veneration of honor and affection, such
as can be given to the creature, and that under no circumstances could the
adoration of divine worship be given to them but to God alone.

The Greek language has in this respect a great advantage over the Hebrew,
the Latin and the English; it has a word which is a general word and is
properly used of the affectionate regard and veneration shown to any
person or thing, whether to the divine Creator or to any of his creatures,
this word is 7tpoGKX)vr|oi<;: it has also another word which can properly
be used to denote only the worship due to the most high, God, this word
is XocTpeioc. When then the Council defined that the worship of "latria
"was never to be given to any but God alone, it cut off all possibility for
idolatry, mariolatry, iconolatry, or any other "larry" except "theolarry." If
therefore any of these other "latries" exist or ever have existed, they exist
or have existed not in accordance with, but in defiance of, the decree of the
Second Council of Nice.

But unfortunately, as I have said, we have neither in Hebrew, Latin, nor
English any word with this restricted meaning, and therefore when it
became necessary to translate the Greek acts and the decree, great
difficulty was experienced, and by the use of "adoro" as the equivalent of
rcpoaicuveco many were scandalized, thinking that it was divine adoration
which they were to give to the sacred images, which they knew would be
idolatry. The same trouble is found in rendering into English the acts and
decrees; for while indeed properly speaking "worship" no more means
necessarily divine worship in English than "adoratio" does in Latin (e.g. 1
Chronicles 29:20, "All the congregation bowed down their heads and
worshipped the Lord and the King" [i.e. Solomon]; Luke 14:10, "Then
shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee
"), yet to the popular mind "the worship of images" is the equivalent of
idolatry. In the following translations I have uniformly translated as

1284

follows and the reader from the English will know what the word is in the
original.

ripooicuveco, to venerate; tiuxxco to honor; XocTpeuco, to adore;
aonatp\iai, to salute; dovXevo), to serve; eiKcov, an image.

The relative force of 7tpoaK\)vr|Gi<; and XocTpeioc cannot better be set
forth than by Archbishop Trench's illustration of two circles having the
same center, the larger including the less (New Testament Synonyms, sub
vote AocTpeiJco).

To make this matter still clearer I must ask the reader' s attention to the
use of the words abadh and shachah in the Hebrew; the one abadh, which
finds, when used with reference to God or to false gods its equivalent in
^ocxpeijco the other shachah, which is represented by rcpooicuveco. Now
in the Old Testament no distinction in the Hebrew is drawn between these
words when applied to creator or creature. The one denotes service
primarily for hire; the other bowing down and kissing the hand to any in
salutation. Both words are constantly used and sometimes refer to the
Creator and sometimes to the creature — e.g., we read that Jacob served
(abadh) Laban (Genesis 29:20); and that Joshua commanded the people
not to serve the gods of their fathers but to serve (abadh) the Lord (Joshua
24:14). And for the use of shachah the following may suffice: "And all the
congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers and bowed down their
heads and worshipped (Hebrew, shachah; Greek, rcpoaicuveco: Latin,
adoro) the Lord and the King" (1. Chronicles 29:20). But while it is true of
the Hebrew of the Old Testament that there is no word which refers alone
to Divine Worship this is not true of the Septuagint Greek nor of the
Greek of the New Testament, for in both rcpoaicuveco has always its
general meaning, sometimes applying to the creature and sometimes to the
Creator; but ^ocxpexxB is used to denote divine worship alone, as St.
Augustine pointed out long ago.

This distinction comes out very clearly in the inspired translation of the
Hebrew found in Matthew 4:10, "Thou shalt worship (rcpoaicuvriaeic;)
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (XocTp£t>aei<;)"
"Worship" was due indeed to God above all but not exclusively to him,
but latria is to be given to "him only."

1285

I think I have now said enough to let the reader understand the doctrine
taught by the council and to prove that in its decree it simply adopted the
technical use of words found in the Greek of the Septuagint and of the
New Testament. I may then dose this introduction with a few remarks
upon outward acts of veneration in general.

Of course, the outward manifestation in bodily acts of reverence will vary
with times and with the habits of peoples. To those accustomed to kiss
the earth on which the Emperor had trodden, it would be natural to kiss
the feet of the image of the King of Kings. The same is manifestly true of
any outward acts whatever, such as bowing, kneeling, burning of lights,
and offering of incense. All these when offered before an image are,
according to the mind of the Council, but outward signs of the reverence
due to that which the image represents and pass backward to the
prototype, and thus it defined, citing the example of the serpent in the
wilderness, of which we read, "For he that turned himself toward it was
not saved by the thing that he saw, but by thee, that art the Savior of all"
(Wisdom 16:17). If anyone feels disposed to attribute to outward acts any
necessary religious value he is falling back into Judaism, and it were well
for him to remember that the nod which the Quakers adopted out of
protest to the bow of Christians was once the expression of divine
worship to the most sacred idols; that in the Eastern Church the priest
only bows before the Lord believed to be present in the Holy Sacrament
while he prostrates himself before the infidel Sultan; and that throughout
the Latin communion the acolytes genuflect before, the Bishop, as they
pass him, with the same genuflection that they give to the Holy Sacrament
upon the Altar. In this connection I quote in closing the fine satire in the
letter of this very council to the Emperor and Empress. St. Paul "says of
Jacob (Hebrews 11:21), ' He worshipped the top of his staff,' and like to
this is that said by Gregory, surnamed the theologian, ' Revere Bethlehem
and worship the manger,' But who of those truly understanding the Divine
Scriptures would suppose that here was intended the Divine worship of
latria? Such an opinion could only be entertained by an idiot or one
ignorant of Scriptural and Patristic knowledge. Would Jacob give divine
worship to his staff? Or would Gregory, the theologian, give command to
worship as God a manger!"

1286

THE DIVINE SACRA SENT BY THE EMPERORS CONSTANTINE

AND IRENE TO THE MOST HOLY AND MOST BLESSED

HADRIAN, POPE OF OLD ROME.

(Found in Zabbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 32.)

They who receive the dignity of the empire, or the honor of the principal
priesthood from our Lord Jesus Christ, ought to provide and to care for
those things which please him, and rule and govern the people committed
to their care according to his will and good pleasure.

Therefore, O most holy Head (Caput), it is incumbent upon us and you,
that irreprehensibly we know the things which be his, and that in these we
exercise ourselves, since from him we have received the imperatorial
dignity, and you the dignity of the chief priesthood.

But now to speak more to the point. Your paternal blessedness knows
what hath been done in times past in this our royal city against the
venerable images, how those who reigned immediately before us destroyed
them and subjected them to disgrace and injury: (O may it not be imputed
to them, for it had been better for them had they not laid their hands upon
the '1 Church!) — and how they seduced and brought over to their own
opinion all the people who live in these parts — yea, even the whole of
the East, in like manner, up to the time in which God hath exalted us to
this kingdom, who seek his glory in truth, and hold that which has been
handed down by his Apostles together with all other teachers. Whence
now with pure heart and unfeigned religion we have, together with all our
subjects and our most learned divines, had constant conferences respecting
the things which relate to God, and by their advice have determined to
summon a General Council. And we entreat your paternal blessedness, or
rather the Lord God entreats, "who will have all men to be saved and to
come to the knowledge of the truth," that you will give yourself to us and
make no delay, but come up hither to aid us in the confirmation and
establishment of the ancient tradition of venerable images. It is, indeed,
incumbent on your holiness to do this, since you know how it is written
— " Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, ye priests, saith the Lord," and

1287

"the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and the law shall go forth out
of his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of Hosts." And again, the
divine Apostle, the preacher of the truth, who, "from Jerusalem and round
about unto Illyricum, preached the Gospel," hath thus commanded — "
Feed with discipline the flock of Christ which he purchased with his own
blood." As then you are the veritable chief priest (primus sacerdos) who
presides in the place and in the see of the holy and superlaudable Apostle
Peter, let your paternal blessedness come to us, as we have said before,
and add your presence to all those other priests who shall be assembled
together here, that thus the will of the Lord may be accomplished. For as
we are taught in the Gospels our Lord saith — "When two or three are
met together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" — let your
paternal and sacred blessedness be certified and confirmed by the great
God and King of all, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by us his servants, that if
you come up hither you shall be received with all honor and glory, and
that everything necessary for you shall be granted. And again, when the
definition (capitulum) shall be completed, which by the good pleasure of
Christ our God we hope shall be done, we take upon us to provide for you
every facility of returning with honor and distinction. If, however, your
blessedness cannot attend upon us (which we can scarcely imagine,
knowing what is your zeal about divine things), at least, pray select for us
men of understanding, having with them letters from your holiness, that
they may be present here in the person of your sacred and paternal
blessedness. So, when they meet with the other priests who are here, the
ancient tradition of our holy fathers may be synodically confirmed, and
every evil plant of tares may be rooted out, and the words of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ may be fulfilled, that "the gates of hell shall not prevail
against her." And after this, may there be no further schism and separation
in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which Christ our true
God is the Head.

We have had Constantine, beloved in Christ, most holy Bishop of
Leontina in our beloved Sicily, with whom your paternal blessedness is
well acquainted, into our presence; and, having spoken with him face to
face, have sent him with this our present venerable jussio to you. Whom,
after that he hath seen you, forthwith dismiss, that he may come back to
us, and write us by him concerning your coming — what time we may

1288

expect will be spent in your journeying thence and coming to us.
Moreover, he can retain with him the most holy Bishop of Naples, and
come up hither together with him. And, as your journey will be by way of
Naples and Sicily we have given orders to the Governor of Sicily about
this, that he take due care to have every needful preparation made for your
honor and rest, which is necessary in order that your paternal blessedness
may come to us. Given on the with before the calends of September, the
seventh indiction, from the Royal City.

1289

THE IMPERIAL SACRA.

READ AT THE FIRST SESSION.

(Found in Labbe and Cossart,

Constantine and Irene — Sovereigns of the Romans in the Faith, to the
most holy Bishops, who, by the grace of God and by the command of our
pious Sovereignty, have met together in the Council of Nice.

The Wisdom which is truly according to the nature of God and the Father
— our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God — who, by his most divine and
wonderful dispensation in the flesh, hath delivered us from all idolatrous
error: and, by taking on him our nature, hath renewed the same by the
co-operation of the Spirit, which is of the same nature with himself; and
having himself become the first High Priest, hath counted you holy men,
worthy of the same dignity.

He is that good Shepherd who, bearing on his own shoulders that
wandering sheep — fallen man, hath brought him back to his own peculiar
folds-that is, the party of angelic and ministering powers (Eph. if. 14, 15),
and hath reconciled us in himself and having taken away the wall of
partition, hath broken down the enmity through his flesh, and hath
bestowed upon us a rule of conduct tending to peace; wherefore, preaching
to all, he saith in the Gospel, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
be called the children of God (Matt. 5:9). Of which blessedness,
confirming as it does the exaltation of the adoption of sons, our pious
Sovereignty desiring above all things to be made partakers, hath ever
applied the utmost diligence to direct all our Roman Commonwealth into
the ways of unity and concord; and more especially have we been
solicitous concerning the right regulation of the Church of God, and most
anxious in every way to promote the unity of the priesthood. For which
cause the Chiefs of the Sacerdotal Order of the East and of the North, of
the West and of the South, are present in the person of their
Representative Bishops, who have with them respectively the replies
written in answers to the Synodical Epistle sent from the most holy

1290

Patriarch; for such was from the beginning the synodical regulation of the
Church Catholic, which, from the one end of the earth to the other, hath
received the Gospel. On this account we have, by the good will and
permission of God, caused you, his most holy Priests, to meet together —
you who are accustomed to dispense his Testimony in the unbloody
sacrifice — that your decision may be in accordance with the definitions of
former councils who decreed rightly, and that the splendor of the Spirit
may illumine you in all things, for, as our Lord teaches, No man lighteth a
candle and putteth it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that it may give
light to all that are in the house; even so, should ye make such use of the
various regulations which have been piously handed down to us of old by
our Fathers, that all the Holy Churches of God may remain in peaceful
order.

As for us, such was our zeal for the truth — such our earnest desire for
the interests of religion, our care for ecclesiastical order, our anxiety that
the ancient rules and orders should maintain their ground — that though
fully engaged in military councils — though all our attention was occupied
in political cares — yet, treating all these affairs as but of minor
importance, we would allow nothing whatever to interfere with the
convocation of your most holy council. To every one is given the utmost
freedom of expressing his sentiments without the least hesitation, that
thus the subject under enquiry may be most fully discussed and truth may
be the more boldly spoken, that so all dissensions may be banished from
the Church and we all may be united in the bonds of peace.

For, when the most holy Patriarch Paul, by the divine will, was about to
be liberated from the bands of mortality and to exchange his earthly
pilgrimage for a heavenly home with his Master Christ, he abdicated the
Patriarchate and took upon him the monastic life, and when we asked him,
Why hast thou done this? he answered, Because I fear that, if death should
surprise me still in the episcopate of this royal and heaven-defended city, I
should have to carry with me the anathema of the whole Catholic Church,
which consigns me to that outer darkness which is prepared for the devil
and his angels; for they say that a certain synod hath been held here in
order to the subversion of pictures and images which the Catholic Church
holds, embraces, and receives, in memory of the persons whom they
represent. This is that which distracts my soul — this is that which makes

1291

me anxiously to enquire how I may escape the judgment of God — since
among such men I have been brought up and with such am I numbered. No
sooner had he thus spoken in the presence of some of our most illustrious
nobles than he expired.

When our Pious Sovereignty reflected on this awful declaration (and truly,
even before this event, we had heard of similar questionings from many
around), we took counsel with ourselves as to what ought to be done; and
we determined, after mature deliberation, that when a new Patriarch had
been elected, we should endeavor to bring this subject to some decisive
conclusion. Wherefore, having summoned those whom we knew to be
most experienced in ecclesiastical matters, and having called upon Christ
our God, we consulted with them who was worthy to be exalted to the
chair of the Priesthood of this Royal and God-preserved city; and they all
with one heart and soul gave their vote in favor of Tarasius — he who now
occupies the Pontifical Presidency. Having, therefore, sent for him, we laid
before him our deliberations and our vote; but he would by no means
consent, nor at all yield to that which had been determined. And when we
enquired, Wherefore he thus refused his consent? — at first he answered
evasively, That the yoke of the Chief Priesthood was too much for him.
But we, knowing this to be a mere pretext coveting his unwillingness to
obey us, would not desist from our importunity, but persisted in pressing
the acceptance of the dignity of the Chief Priesthood upon him. When he
found how urgent we were with him, he told us the cause of his refusal. It
is (said he) because I perceive that the Church which has been founded on
the rock, Christ our God, is rent and torn asunder by schisms, and that we
are unstable in our confession, and that Christians in the East, of the same
faith with ourselves, decline communion with us, and unite them with
those of the West; and so we are estranged from all, and each day are
anathematized by all: and, moreover, I should demand that an Ecumenical
Council should be held, at which should be found Legates from the Pope
of Rome and from the Chief Priests of the East. We, therefore, fully
understanding these things, introduced him to the assembled company of
the Priests — of our most illustrious Princes — and of all our Christian
people; and then, in their presence, he repeated to them all that he had
before said to us; which, when they heard, they received him joyfully, and
earnestly entreated our peace-making and pious Sovereignty that an

1292

Ecumenical Council might be assembled. To this their request, we gave our
hearty consent; for, to speak the truth, it is by the good will and under the
direction of our God that we have assembled you together. Wherefore as
God, willing to establish his own counsel, hath for this purpose brought
you together from all parts of the world, behold the Gospels now lying
before you, and plainly crying aloud, "Judge justly;" stand firm as
champions of religion, and be ready with unsparing hand to cut away all
innovations and new fangled inventions. And, as Peter the Chief of the
Apostolic College, struck the mad slave and cut off his Jewish ear with the
sword, so in like manner do ye wield the axe of the Spirit, and every tree
which bears the fruit of contention, of strife, or newly-imported
innovation, either renew by transplanting through the words of sound
doctrine, or lay it low with canonical censure, and send it to file fires of the
future Gehenna, so that the peace of the Spirit may evermore protect the
whole body of the Church, compacted and united in one, and confirmed by
the traditions of the Fathers; and so may all our Roman State enjoy peace
as well as the Church.

We have received letters from Hadrian, most Holy Pope of old Rome, by
his Legates — namely, Peter, the God-beloved Archpresbyter, and Peter,
the God — beloved Presbyter and Abbot — who will be present in
council with you; and we command that, according to synodical custom,
these be read in the hearing of you all; and that, having heard these with
becoming silence, and moreover the Epistles contained in two octavos sent
by the Chief Priest and other Priests of the Eastern dioceses by John,
most pious Monk and Chancellor of the Patriarchal throne of Antioch, and
Thomas, Priest and Abbot, who also are present together with you, ye
may by these understand what are the sentiments of the Church Catholic
on this point.

1293

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 53.)

[Certain bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking
to be received back. The first of these was Basil ofAncyra.]

The bishop Basil of Ancyra read as follows from a book; Inasmuch as
ecclesiastical legislation has canonically been handed down from past time,
even from the beginning from the holy Apostles, and from their
successors, who were our holy fathers and teachers, and also from the six
holy and ecumenical synods, and from the local synods which were
gathered in the interests of orthodoxy, that those returning from any
heresy whatever to the orthodox faith and to the tradition of the Catholic
Church, might deny their own heresy, and confess the orthodox faith,

Wherefore I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to
the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and
to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic
sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all
orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my
faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by
apostolic authority. And in this also I beg pardon from your divinely
gathered holiness for my tardiness in this matter. For it was not right that I
should have fallen behind in the confession of orthodoxy, but it arose from
my entire lack of knowledge, and slothful and negligent mind in the matter.
Wherefore the rather I ask your blessedness to grant me indulgence in
God's sight.

I believe, therefore, and make my confession in one God, the Father
Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, and in the
Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life. The Trinity, one in essence and

1294

one in majesty, must be worshipped and glorified in one godhead, power,
and authority. I confess all things pertaining to the incarnation of one of
the Holy Trinity, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, as the Saints and the six
Ecumenical Synods have handed down. And I reject and anathematize
every heretical babbling, as they also have rejected them. I ask for the
intercessions (7tpea(3eia<;) of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God,
and those of the holy and heavenly powers, and those of all the Saints.

And receiving their holy and honorable reliques with all honor (tiut|<;) I
salute and venerate these with honor (Tijj,TyciK(3<; rcpoaicuveco) hoping to
have a share in their heliness. Likewise also the venerable images
(e'ikovocc;) of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the humanity he
assumed for our salvation; and of our spotless Lady, the holy Mother of
God; and of the angels like unto God; and of the holy Apostles, Prophets,
Martyrs, and of all the Saints — the sacred images of all these, I salute and
venerate -rejecting and anathematizing with my whole soul and mind the
synod which was gathered together out of stubbornness and madness, and
which styled itself the Seventh Synod, but which by those who think
accurately was called lawfully and canonically a pseudo-synod, as being
contrary to all truth and piety, arm audaciously and temerariously against
the divinely handed down ecclesiastical legislation, yea, even impiously
baring yelped at and scoffed at the holy and venerable images, and having
ordered these to be taken away out of the holy churches of God; over
which assembly presided Theodosius with time pseudonym of Ephesius,
Sisinnius of Perga, with the surname Pastillas, Basilius of Pisidia, falsely
called "tricaccabus;" with whom the wretched Constantine, the then
Patriarch, was led (euxxxocicoGri) astray.

These things thus I confess and to these I assent, and therefore in
simplicity of heart and in uprightness of mind, in the presence of God, I
have made the subjoined anathematisms.

Anathema to the calumniators of the Christians, that is to the image
breakers.

Anathema to those who apply the words of Holy Scripture which were
spoken against idols, to the venerable images.

Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.

1295

Anathema to those who say that Christians have recourse to the images as
to gods.

Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols.

Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with those who revile
and dishonor the venerable images.

Anathema to those who say that another than Christ our Lord hath
delivered us from idols.

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the
tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own
the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless
we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not
follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical
Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church hath at any
time sanctioned idols.

Anathema to those who say that the making of images is a diabolical
invention and not a tradition of our holy Fathers.

This is my confession [of faith] and to these propositions I give my
assent. And I pronounce this with my whole heart, and soul, and mind.

And if at any time by the fraud of the devil (which may God forbid!) I
voluntarily or involuntarily shall be opposed to what I have now
professed, may I be anathema from the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost, and from the Catholic Church and every hierarchical order a
stranger.

I will keep myself from every acceptance of a bribe and from filthy lucre
in accordance with the divine canons of the holy Apostles and of the
approved Fathers.

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: This whole sacred gathering yields
glory and thanks to God for this confession of yours, which you have
made to the Catholic Church.

1296

The Holy Synod said: Glory to God which maketh one that which was
severed.

{Theodore, bishop ofMyra, then read the same confession, and was
received. The next bishop who asked to be received read as follows: (col.
60)]

Theodosius, the humble Christian, to the holy and Ecumenical Synod: I
confess and I agree to (auvTiGejioci) and I receive and I salute and I
venerate in the first place the spotless image of our Lord Jesus Christ, our
true God, and the holy image of her who bore him without seed, the holy
Mother of God, and her help and protection and intercessions each day
and night as a sinner to my aid I call for, since she has confidence with
Christ our God, as he was born of her. Likewise also I receive and venerate
the images of the holy and most laudable Apostles, prophets, and martyrs
and the fathers and cultivators of the desert. Not indeed as gods (God
forbid!) do I ask all these with my whole heart to pray for me to God, that
he may grant me through their intercessions to find mercy at his hands at
the day of judgment, for in this I am but showing forth more clearly the
affection and love of my soul which I have born them from the first.
Likewise also I venerate and honor and salute the reliques of the Saints as
of those who fought for Christ and who have received grace from him for
the healing of diseases and the curing of sicknesses and the casting out of
devils, as the Christian Church has received from the holy Apostles and
Fathers even down to us today.

Moreover, I am well pleased that there should be images in the churches of
the faithful, especially the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the holy
Mother of God, of every kind of material, both gold and silver and of
every color, so that his incarnation may be set forth to all men. Likewise
there may be painted the lives of the Saints and Prophets and Martyrs, so
that their struggles and agonies may be set forth in brief, for the stirring up
and teaching of the people, especially of the unlearned.

For if the people go forth with lights and incense to meet the "laurata" and
images of the Emperors when they are sent to cities or rural districts, they
honor surely not the tablet covered over with wax, but the Emperor
himself. How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our
God, the image of God our Savior and of his spotless Mother and of all the

1297

holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted? Even as also St.
Basil says: "Writers and painters set forth the great deeds of war; the one
by word, the other by their pencils; and each stirs many to, courage." And
again the same author "How much pains have you ever taken that you
might find one of the Saints who was willing to be your importunate
intercessor to the Lord?" And Chrysostom says, "The charity of the
Saints is not diminished by their death, nor does it come to an end with
their exit from life, but after their death they are still more powerful than
when they were alive," and many other things without measure. Therefore
I ask you, O ye Saints! I call out to you. I have sinned against heaven and
in your sight. Receive me as God received the luxurious man, and the
harlot, and the thief. Seek me out, as Christ sought out the sheep that was
lost, which he carried on his shoulders; so that there may be joy in the
presence of God and of his angels over my salvation and repentance,
through your intervention, O all-holy lords! Let them who do not venerate
the holy and venerable images be anathema! Anathema to those who
blaspheme against the honorable and venerable images! To those who dare
to attack and blaspheme the venerable images and call them idols,
anathema! To the calumniators of Christianity, that is to say the
Iconoclasts, anathema! To those who do not diligently teach all the
Christ-loving people to venerate and salute the venerable and sacred and
honorable images of all the Saints who pleased God in their several
generations, anathema! To those who have a doubtful mind and do not
confess with their whole hearts that they venerate the sacred images,
anathema!

Sabbas, the most reverend hegumenus of the monastery of the Studium,
said: According to the Apostolic precepts and the Ecumenical Synods he
is worthy to be received back.

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: Those who formerly were the
calumniators of orthodoxy, now are become the advocates of the truth.

[Near the end of this session, (col. 77)]

John, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Eastern high priests said:
This heresy is the worst of all heresies. Woe to the iconoclasts! It is the
worst of heresies, as it subverts the incarnation (oikovojjAocv) of our
Savior.

1298

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION II.

[The Papal Letters were presented by the Legates. First was read that to
Constantine and Irene, but not in its entirety, if we may trust Anastasius the
Librarian, who gives what he says is the original Latin text. Here follows a
translation of this and of the Greek, also a translation of the Latin passage
altogether omitted, (as we are told) with the consent of the Roman Legates.]

PART OF POPE HADRIAN'S LETTER.

[As written by the Pope.]

(Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVL, col. 1217.)

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the
sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts,
as by the Lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the
blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy
Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the
other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will
your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another
Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own
imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and
deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions
of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed
Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy
Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honor, love with all your

1299

heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their
orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the
Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind
and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all
barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors.
For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great
veneration ought to be shewn to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in
the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys

[As read in Greek to the Council.]

(Migne, Pat. Lat, Tom. XCVL, col. 1218.)

If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those
regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will
be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the
Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and
confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the
Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox
Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and
heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another
Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the
whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is
restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith
of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace
their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honored
their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty
honor the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was
given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven
and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all
barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they
will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves,
who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written
law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold
their Faith and remain in it to the end. of the kingdom of heaven as chief
over all, and by Him is he honored with this privilege, by which the keys
of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was
preferred with so exalted an honor was thought worthy to confess that

1300

Faith on which the Church of Christ is rounded. A blessed reward
followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy
universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God
have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of
the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his
Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most
holy seat for ever. And that power of authority, which he received from
the Lord God our Savior, he too bestowed and delivered by divine
command to the Pontiffs, his successors, etc.

[The part which was never read to the Council at all.]

(Found in L. and C, Concilia, Tom. VII, col. 117.)

We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the
Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal:
but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or
the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful
and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your
writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy
Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never
could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal,
above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of
all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel
against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is
recognized to have the Primacy even over the (Church of our See, which
appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the
chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the
Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose
place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church
holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that
if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being
called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox
Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[After the reading was ended (col. 120)]

1301

Tarasius the most holy patriarch said: Did you yourselves receive these
letters from the most holy Pope, and did you carry them to our pious
Emperor?

Peter and Peter the most beloved-of-God presbyters who held the place of
Hadrian, the most holy pope of Rome, said: We ourselves received such
letters from our apostolic father and delivered them to the pious lords.

John, the most magnificent Logothete, said: That this is the case is also
known to the Sicilians, the beloved of God Theodore, the bishop of
Catanea, and the most revered deacon Epiphanius who is with him, who
holds the place of the archbishop of Sardinia. For both of these at the
bidding of our pious Emperors, went to Rome with the most reverend
apocrisarius of our most holy patriarch.

Theodore the God-beloved bishop of Catanea, standing in the midst, said:
The pious emperor, by his honorable jussio, bid send Leo, the most
God-beloved presbyter (who together with myself is a slave of your
holiness), with the precious letter of his most sacred majesty; and he who
reveres our [sic in Greek, "your," in Latin] holiness, being the governor
(GTpaxr|y6<;) of my province of Sicily, sent me to Rome with the pious
jussio of our orthodox Emperors.

And when we were gone, we announced file orthodox faith of the pious
emperors.

And when the most blessed Pope heard it, he said: Since this has come to
pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all
former reigns. And this suggestion (ocvoccpopocv) which has been read he
sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and
with his vicars who are here present and presiding.

Cosmas, the deacon, notary, and chamberlain (Cubuclesius) said: And
another letter was sent by the most holy Pope of Old Rome to Tarasius,
our most holy and oecumenical Patriarch. Let it be disposed of as your
holy assembly shall direct.

The Holy Synod said, Let it be read.

[Then was read Hadrian's letter to Tarasius of Constantinople, which ends
by saying that, "our dearly-loved proto-presbyter of the Holy Church of

1302

Rome, and Peter, a monk, a presbyter, and an abbot, who have been sent
by us to the most tranquil and pious emperors, we beg you will deem
them worthy of all kindness and humane amenity for the sake of St. Peter,
coropheus of the Apostles, and for our sakes, so that for this we may be
able to offer you our sincere thanks." The letter being ended (col. 128),]

Peter and Peter, the most reverend presbyters and representatives of the
most holy Pope of Old Rome said: Let the most holy Tarasius, Patriarch
of the royal city, say whether he agrees (GTOi%ei) with the letters of the
most holy Pope of Old Rome or not.

Tarasius the most holy patriarch said: The divine Apostle Paul, who was
filled with the light of Christ, and who hath begotten us through the
gospel, in writing to the Romans, commending their zeal for the true faith
which they had in Christ our true God, thus said: "Your faith is gone forth
into all the world." It is necessary to follow out this witness, and he that
would contradict it is without good sense. Wherefore Hadrian, the ruler of
Old Rome, since he was a sharer of these things, thus born witness to,
wrote expressly and truly to our religious Emperors, and to our humility,
confirming admirably and beautifully the ancient tradition of the Catholic
Church. And we also ourselves, having examined both in writing, and by
inquisition, and syllogistically and by demonstration, and having been
taught by the teachings of the Fathers, so have confessed, so do confess,
and so will confess; and shall be fast, and shall remain, and shall stand firm
in the sense of the letters which have just been read, receiving the imaged
representations according to the ancient tradition of our holy fathers; and
these we venerate with firmly- attached affection, as made in the name of
Christ our God, and of our Spotless Lady the Holy Mother of God, and of
the Holy Angels, and of all the Saints, most clearly giving our adoration
and faith to the one only true God.

And the holy Synod said: The whole holy Synod thus teaches. Peter and
Peter, the God-loved presbyters and legates of the Apostolic See, said: Let
the holy Synod say whether it receives the letters of the most holy Pope
of Old Rome.

The holy Synod said: We follow, we receive, we admit them.

1303
[The bishops then give one by one their votes all in the same sense.]

1304

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION III.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 188.)

Constantine, the most holy bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, said: Since
I, unworthy that I am, find that the letter which has just been read, which
was sent from the East to Tarasius the most holy archbishop and
ecumenical patriarch, is in no sense changed from that confession of faith
which he himself had before made, to these I consent and become of one
mind, receiving and saluting with honor the holy and venerable images. But
the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and
life-giving Trinity. And those who are not so minded, and do not so teach I
cast out of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and T smite them
with anathema, and I deliver them over to the lot of those who deny the
incarnation and the bodily economy of Christ our true God.

NOTES

HEFELE

(Hist. Councils, Vol. V., p. 366.)

By false translation and misunderstanding the Frankish bishops
subsequently at the Synod of Frankfort, A.D. 794, and also in the
Carolingian books (iii. 17), understood this to mean that a demand had
been made at Nicaea that the same devotion should be offered to the
images as to the Most Holy Trinity.

1305

Under these circumstances it is clear that the Franks could do nothing but
reject the decrees. I have treated of this whole matter elsewhere.

1306

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION IV.

[Among numerous passages of the Fathers one was read from a sermon
by St. Gregory Nyssen in which he describes a painting representing the
sacrifice of Isaac and tells how he could not pass it "without tears."]

The most glorious princes said: See how our father grieved at the depicted
history, even so that he wept.

Basil, the most holy bishop of Ancyra, said: Many times the father had
read the story, but perchance he had not wept; but when once he saw it
painted, he wept.

John the most reverend monk and presbyter and representative of the
Eastern high priests, said: If to such a doctor the picture was helpful and
drew forth tears, how much more in the case of the ignorant and simple
will it bring compunction and benefit.

The holy Synod said: We have seen in several places the history of
Abraham painted as the father says.

Theodore the most holy bishop of Catanea, said: If the holy Gregory,
vigilant in divine cogitation, was moved to tears at the sight of the story of
Abraham, how much more shall a painting of the incarnation of our Lord
Christ, who for us was made man, move the beholders to their profit and
to tears?

Tarasius the most holy Patriarch said: Shall we not weep when we see an
image of our crucified Lord?

The holy Synod said: We shall indeed — for in that shall be found
perfectly the, profundity of the abasement of the incarnate God for our
sakes.

1307

[Post nonnulla a passage is read from St. Athanasius in which he describes
the miracles worked at Berytus, after which there is found the following
(col. 224),]

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: But perhaps someone will say,
Why do not the images which we have work miracles? To which we
answer, that as the Apostle has said, signs are for those who do not
believe, not for believers. For they who approached that image were
unbelievers. Therefore God gave them a sign through the image, to draw
them to our Christian faith. But "an evil and adulterous generation that
seeketh after a sign and no sign shall be given it."

[After a number of other quotations, was read the Canon of the Council in
Trullo as a canon of the Sixth Synod (col. 233).]

Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch said: There are certain affected with the
sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the
Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the
Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was
assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but
one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and
having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the
fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same
fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set
forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them.
For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who
under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established
from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right
that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth
ecclesiastical canons. They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by
the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of
his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the
incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of
them who break down the venerable images?

At the close of the Session, after a number of anathematisms had been
pronounced, the following was read, to which all the bishops subscribed
(col. 317).]

1308

Fulfilling the divine precept of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, our holy
Fathers did not hide the light of the divine knowledge given by him to
them under a bushel, but they set it upon the candlestick of most useful
teaching, so that it might give light to all in the house — that is to say, to
those who are born in the Catholic Church; lest perchance anyone of those
who piously confess the Lord might strike his foot against the stone of
heretical evil doctrine. For they expelled every error of heretics and they
cut off the rotten member if it was incurably sick. And with a fan they
purged the floor. And the good wheat, that is to say tire word which
nourisheth and which maketh strong the heart of man, they laid up in the
granary of the Catholic Church; but throwing outside the chaff of heretical
evil opinion they burned it with unquenchable fire. Therefore also this
holy and ecumenical Synod, met together for the second time in this
illustrious metropolis of Nice, by the will of God and at the bidding of our
pious and most faithful Emperors, Irene a new Helena, and a new
Constantine, her God-protected offspring, having considered by their
perusal the teachings of our approved and blessed Fathers, hath glorified
God himself, from whom there was given to them wisdom for our
instruction, and for the perfecting of the Catholic and Apostolic Church:
and against those who do not believe as they did, but have attempted to
overshadow the truth through their novelty, they have chanted the words
of the psalm: "Oh how much evil have thine enemies done in thy
sanctuary; and have glorified themselves, saying, There is not a teacher
any more, and they shall not know that we treated with guile the word of
truth." But we, in all things holding the doctrines and precepts of the same
our God-bearing Fathers, make proclamation with one mouth and one
heart, neither adding anything, nor taking anything away from those things
which have been delivered to us by them. But in these things we are
strengthened, in these things we are confirmed. Thus we confess, thus we
teach, just as the holy and ecumenical six Synods have decreed and ratified.
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son and Word,
through whom all things were made, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and
giver of life, consubstantial and coeternal with the same Father and with
his Son who hath had no beginning. The unbuilt-up, indivisible,
incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity; he, wholly and alone, is
to be worshipped and revered with adoration; one Godhead, one Lordship,

1309

one dominion, one realm and dynasty, which without division is
apportioned to the Persons, and is fitted to the essence severally. For we
confess that one of the same holy and con substantial Trinity, our Lord
Jesus Christ the true God, in these last days was incarnate and made man
for our salvation, and having saved our race through his saving incarnation,
and passion, and resurrection, and ascension into heaven; and having
delivered us from the error of idols; as also the prophet says, Not an
ambassador, not an angel, but the Lord himself hath saved us. Him we also
follow, and adopt his voice, and cry aloud; No Synod, no power of kings,
no God-hated agreement hath delivered the Church from the error of the
idols, as the Jewdaizing conciliabulum hath madly dreamed, which raved
against the venerable images; but the Lord of glory himself, the incarnate
God, hath saved us and hath snatched us from idolatrous deceit. To him
therefore be glory, to him be thanks, to him be eucharists, to him be praise,
to him be magnificence. For his redemption and his salvation alone can
perfectly save, and not that of other men who come of the earth. For he
himself hath fulfilled for us, upon whom the ends of the earth are come
through the economy of his incarnation, the words spoken beforehand by
his prophets, for he dwelt among us, and went in and out among us, and
cast out the names of idols from the earth, as it was written. But we salute
the voices of the Lord and of his Apostles through which we have been
taught to honor in the first place her who is properly and truly the Mother
of God and exalted above all the heavenly powers; also the holy and
angelic powers; and the blessed and altogether landed Apostles, and the
glorious Prophets and the triumphant Martyrs which fought for Christ,
and the holy and God-bearing Doctors, and all holy men; and to seek for
their intercessions, as able to render us at home with the all-royal God of
all, so long as we keep his commandments, and strive to live virtuously.
Moreover we salute the image of the honorable and life-giving Cross, and
the holy reliques of the Saints; and we receive the holy and venerable
images: and we salute them, and we embrace them, according to the ancient
traditions of the holy Catholic Church of God, that is to say of our holy
Fathers, who also received these things and established them in all the
most holy Churches of God, and in every place of his dominion. These
honorable and venerable images, as has been said, we honor and salute and
reverently venerate: to wit, the image of the incarnation of our great God
and Savior Jesus Christ, and that of our spotless Lady the all-holy Mother

1310

of God, from whom he pleased to take flesh, and to save and deliver us
from all impious idolatry; also the images of the holy and incorporeal
Angels, who as men appeared to the just. Likewise also the figures and
effigies of the divine and all-landed Apostles, also of the God-speaking
Prophets, and of the struggling Martyrs and of holy men. So that through
their representations we may be able to be led back in memory and
recollection to the prototype, and have a share in the holiness of some one
of them.

Thus we have learned to think of these things, and we have been
strengthened by our holy Fathers, and we have been strengthened by their
divinely handed down teaching. And thanks be to God for his ineffable
gift, that he hath not deserted us at the end nor hath the rod of the ungodly
come into the lot of the righteous, lest the righteous put their hands, that is
to say their actual deeds, unto wickedness. But he doeth well unto those
who are good and true of heart, as the psalmist David melodiously has
sung; with whom also we stag the rest of the psalm: As for such as turn
back unto their own wickedness, the Lord shall lead them forth with the
evil doers; and peace shall be upon the Israel of God.

[The subscriptions follow immediately and close the acts of this session
(col. 321-346).]

1311

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS

SESSION VI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 389.)

Leo the most renowned secretary said: The holy and blessed Synod know
how at the last session we examined divers sayings of the God-forsaken
heretics, who had brought charges against the holy and spotless Church of
the Christians for the setting up of the holy images. But today we have in
our hands the written blasphemy of those calumniators of the Christians,
that is to say, the absurd, and easily answered, and self-convicting
definition (opov) of the pseudosyllogus, in all respects agreeing with the
impious opinion of the God-hated heretics. But not only have we this, but
also the artful and most drastic refutation thereof, which the Holy Spirit
had supervised. For it was right that this definition should be made a
triumph by wise contradictions, and should be torn to pieces with strong
refutations. This also we submit so as to know your pleasure with regard
to it.

The holy Synod said: Let it be read.

John, the deacon and chancellor [of the most holy great Church of
Constantinople, in Lat. only] read.

[John, the deacon, then read the orthodox refutation, and Gregory, the
bishop ofNeocoesarea, the Definition of the Mock Council, the one reading
the heretical statement and the other the orthodox answer.]

1312

EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC
CONCILIABULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL

SEVENTH SYNOD.

The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most
pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine
and Leo, now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the temple of the
holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in
Blachernae, have decreed as follows.

Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the
Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin;
but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who
turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the
worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving
doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the
Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the
Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved
inviolate. But the before-mentioned demiurgos of wickedness could not
endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry
under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles
against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent
them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry
his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same
wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no
longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of
demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved
bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into
the deceitful coloring of the pictures (ojioicojioctcov) which draws down
the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (Xaxpeiac,) of God to the low

1313

and material adoration (Xocxpeiocv) of the creature, and that they, under
divine guidance, might express their view on the subject.

Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the
older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas
handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In the
first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.

After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures
blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation — namely, the
Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These
condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God
into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and
Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one
Christ.

Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our
present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the
unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical
Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in
opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union
of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the
folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should
not be depicted — that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that
which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth?
He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and
man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he
has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted
the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should
not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy — the one in
making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead
and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image,
and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius,
Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When,
however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of
Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We
represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But

1314

that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was
also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly
assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now
be separated and represented apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ
which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dullness of the
flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is
the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the
soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained
undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his
voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his
Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If
then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do
the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it
by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety,
since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence
of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce
a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being
made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the
Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the
Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like
the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made
divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians.

The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread
and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other
type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be
brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry
might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this
figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of
the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of
the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common,
sanctifies it.

The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down
from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left
behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made
anything else than ordinary matter.

1315

If, however, some say, we might be right in regard to the images of Christ,
on account of the mysterious union of the two natures, but it is not right
for us to forbid also the images of the altogether spotless and ever-glorious
Mother of God, of the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who were mere
men and did not consist of two natures; we may reply, first of all: If those
fall away, there is no longer need of these. But we will also consider what
may be said against these in particular. Christianity has rejected the whole
of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen
worship of images. The Saints live on eternally with God, although they
have died. If anyone thinks to call them back again to life by a dead art,
discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who
dares attempt with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is
exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is not permitted to Christians,
who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of
demon-worshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory,
by common dead matter.

Moreover, we can prove our view by Holy Scripture and the Fathers. In
the former it is said: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth;" and: "Thou shall not make thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath;" on which account God spoke to the Israelites on
the Mount, from the midst of the fire, but showed them no image. Further:
"They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man,... and served the creature more than the Creator."
[Several other passages, even less to the point, are cited.]

The same is taught also by the holy Fathers. [The Synod appeals to a
spurious passage from Epiphanius and to one inserted into the writings of
Theodotus of Ancyra, a friend of St. Cyril's; to utterances — in no way
striking — of Gregory of Nazianzum, of SS. Chrysostom, Basil,
Athanasius of Amphilochius and of Eusebius Pamphili, from his Letter to
the Empress Constantia, who had asked him for a picture of Christ.]

Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare
unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected
and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness which
is made out of any material and color whatever by the evil art of painters.

1316

Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up
in a church, or in a private house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop,
presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be anathematized,
and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God
and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same
time we ordain that no incumbent of a church shall venture, under pretext
of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the holy
vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with
figures. The same is provided in regard to the vestments of churches,
cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service. If, however, the
incumbent of a church wishes to have such church vessels and vestments
altered, he must do this only with the assent of the holy Ecumenical
patriarch and at the bidding of our pious Emperors. So also no prince or
secular official shall rob the churches, as some have done in former times,
under the pretext of destroying images. All this we ordain, believing that
we speak as doth the Apostle, for we also believe that we have the spirit
of Christ; and as our predecessors who believed the same thing spake what
they had synodically defined, so we believe and therefore do we speak,
and set forth a definition of what has seemed good to us following and in
accordance with the definitions of our Fathers.

(1.) If anyone shall not confess, according to the tradition of the Apostles
and Fathers, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost one godhead,
nature and substance, will and operation, virtue and dominion, kingdom
and power in three subsistences, that is in their most glorious Persons, let
him be anathema.

(2.) If anyone does not confess that one of the Trinity was made flesh, let
him be anathema.

(3.) If anyone does not confess that the holy Virgin is truly the Mother of
God, etc.

(4.) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.

(5.) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving
because it is the flesh of the Word of God, etc.

(6.) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.

1317

(7.) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father
in body and soul, and so will come to judge, and that he will remain God
forever without any grossness, etc.

(8.) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (%ocpocKi;r|p) of the
Word after

the Incarnation with material colors, let him be anathema!

(9.) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material
colors, by reason of the incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or
hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and does not rather
confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be
depicted, let him be anathema!

(1.0.) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two
natures in a picture, and calls it Christ, and fires falsely represents a union
of the two natures, etc. !

( 1 . 1 .) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word
from it, and endeavors to represent it separately in a picture, etc. !

(1.2.) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavors
to represent Him who was born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts
only a relative (a^exiKri) union of the natures, etc.

(1.3.) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with
the Word, and thus separates it from the Godhead, etc.

(1.4.) If anyone endeavors to represent by material colors, God the Word
as a mere man, who, although bearing the form of God, yet has assumed
the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavors to separate
him from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a
quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc.

(1.5.) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever- virgin Mary, truly and
properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether
visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions
as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him,
etc.

1318

(1.6.) If anyone shall endeavor to represent the forms of the Saints in
lifeless pictures with material colors which are of no value (for this notion
is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their
virtues as living images in himself, etc.

(1.7.) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.

(1.8.) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and
the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc.

(1.9.) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh
Synod, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!

[Then follows the prohibition of the making or teaching any other faith, and
the penalties for disobedience. After this follow the acclamations.]

The divine Kings Constantine and Leo said: Let the holy and ecumenical
synod say, if with the consent of all the most holy bishops the definition
just read has been set forth.

The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind.
We have all with one voice and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of
the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the light of
orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your
Empire! You have now more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the
two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry! You have destroyed
the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur
(u.ocvao'up, John Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded,
and worshipper of wood! Anathema to George, his associate, to the
falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an
evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy
of the Empire, to the teacher of impiety, the perverter of Scripture,
Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!

1319

EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM STYLING ITSELF THE

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, BUT COMMONLY CALLED

THE MOCK SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

A.D. 754.

The reader will find all the information he desires with regard to the great
iconoclastic controversy in the ordinary church-histories, and the
theological side of the matter in the writings of St. John Damascene. It
seems, however, that in order to render the meaning of the action of the
last of the Ecumenical Councils clear it is necessary to provide an account
of the synod which was held to condemn what it so shortly afterward
expressly approved. I quote from Hefele in loco, and would only further
draw the reader's attention to the fact that the main thing objected to was
not (as is commonly supposed) the outward veneration of the sacred
icons, but the making and setting up of them, as architectural ornaments;
and that it was not only representations of the persons of the Most Holy
Trinity, and of the Divine Son in his incarnate form that were denounced,
but even pictures of the Blessed Virgin and of the other saints; all this is
evident to anyone reading the foregoing abstract of the decree.

(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 308 et seqq.)

The Emperor, after the death of the Patriarch Anastasius (A.D. 753),
summoned the bishops of his Empire to a great synod in the palace Hieria,
which lay opposite to Constantinople on the Asiatic side of the
Bosphorus, between Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, a little to the north of
the latter. The vacancy of the patriarchate, facilitated his plans, since the
hope of succeeding to this see kept down, in the most ambitious and
aspiring of the bishops, any possible thought of opposition. The number
of those present amounted to 338 bishops, and the place of president was
occupied by Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus, already known to us as
son of a former Emperor — Apsimar, from the beginning an assistant in
the iconoclastic movement. Nicephorus names him alone as president of
the synod; Theophanes, on the contrary, mentions Bishop Pastillas of
Perga as second president, and adds, "The Patriarchates of Rome,

1320

Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented [the last three
were then in the hands of the Saracens], the transactions began on
February 10th, and lasted until August 8th (in Hieria); on the latter date,
however, the synod assembled in St. Mary's Church in Blachernae, the
northern suburb of Constantinople, and the Emperor now solemnly
nominated Bishop Constantine of Sylaeum, a monk, as patriarch of
Constantinople. On August 27th, the heretical decree [of the Synod] was
published."

We see from this that the last sessions of this Conciliabulum were held no
longer in Hieria, but in the Blachernae of Constantinople. We have no
complete Acts of this assembly, but its very verbose opoc; (decree),
together with a short introduction, is preserved among the acts of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council.

This decree was by no means suffered to remain inoperative.

(W. M. Sinclair. Smith and Wace, Dictionary ofChr. Biog., sub voce
Constantinus VI.)

The Emperor singled out the more noted monks, and required them to
comply with the decrees of the synod. In A.D. 766 he exacted an oath
against images from all the inhabitants of the empire. The monks refused
with violent obstinacy, and Copronymus appears to have amused himself
by treating them with ruthless harshness. The Emperor, indeed, seems to
have contemplated the extirpation of monachism. John the Damascene he
persuaded his bishops to excommunicate. Monks were forced to appear in
the hippodrome at Constantinople hand in hand with harlots, while the
populace spat at them. The new patriarch Constantinus, presented by the
emperor to the council the last day of its session, was forced to forswear
images, to attend banquets, to eat and drink freely against his monastic
vows, to wear garlands, to witness the coarse spectacles and hear the
coarse language which entertained the Emperor. Monasteries were
destroyed, made into barracks, or secularized. Lachanodraco, governor of
the Thracian Theme, seems to have exceeded Copronymus in his ribaldry
and injustice. He collected a number of monks into a plain, clothed them
with white, presented them with wives, and forced them to choose
between marriage and loss of eyesight. He sold the property of the

1321

monasteries, and sent the price to the Emperor. Copronymus publicly
thanked him, and commended his example to other governors.

(Harnack. History of Dogma, Vol. V., p. 325 [Eng. Tr.].)

The clergy obeyed when the decrees were published; but resistance was
offered in the ranks of the monks. Many took to flight, some became
martyrs. The imperial police stormed the churches, and destroyed those
images and pictures that had not been secured. The iconoclastic zeal by no
means sprang from enthusiasm for divine service in spirit and in truth. The
Emperor now also directly attacked the monks; he meant to extirpate the
hated order, and to overthrow the throne of Peter. We see how the idea of
an absolute military state rose powerfully in Constantinople; how it
strove to establish itself by brute force. The Emperor, according to
trustworthy evidence, made the inhabitants of the city swear that they
would henceforth worship no image, and give up all intercourse with
monks. Cloisters were turned into arsenals and barracks, relics were hurled
into the sea, and the monks, as far as possible, secularized. And the
politically far-seeing Emperor, at the same time entered into
correspondence with France (Synod of Gentilly, A.D. 767), and sought to
win Pepin. History seemed to have suffered a violent rupture, a new era
was dawning which should supersede the history of the Church.

But the Church was too powerful, and the Emperor was not even master
of Oriental Christendom, but only of part of it. The orthodox Patriarchs of
the East (under the rule of Islam) declared against the iconoclastic
movement, and a Church without monks or pictures, in schism with the
other orthodox Churches, was a nonentity. A spiritual reformer was
wanting. Thus the great reaction set in after the death of the Emperor
(A.D. 775), the ablest ruler Constantinople had seen for a long time. This
is not the place to describe how it was inaugurated and cautiously carried
out by the skillful policy of the Empress Irene; cautiously, for a generation
had already grown up that was accustomed to the cultus without images.
An important part was played by the miracles performed by the
re-emerging relics and pictures. But the lower classes had always been
really favorable to them; only the army and the not inconsiderable number
of bishops who were of the school of Constantine had to be carefully
handled. Tarasius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople and a supporter of

1322

images, succeeded, after overcoming much difficulty, and especially
distrust in Rome and the East, after also removing the excited army, in
bringing together a General Council of about 350 bishops at Nicaea, A.D.
787, which reversed the decrees of A.D. 754. The proceedings of the seven
sittings are of great value, because very important patristic passages have
been preserved in them which otherwise would have perished; for at this
synod also the discussions turned chiefly on the Fathers. The decision
(opoq) restored orthodoxy and finally settled it.

I cannot do better than to cite in conclusion the words of the profoundly
learned Archbishop of Dublin, himself a quasi-Iconoclast.

(Trench. Lect. Medieval Ch. Hist., p. 93.)

It is only fair to state that the most zealous favorers and promoters of this
ill-directed homage always disclaimed with indignation the charge of
offering to the images any reverence which did not differ in kind, and not
merely in degree, from the worship which they offered to Almighty God,
designating it as they did by altogether a different name. We shall very
probably feel that in these distinctions which they drew between the one
and the other, between the "honor" which they gave to these icons and the
"worship" which they withheld from these and gave only to God, there
lay no slightest justification of that in which they allowed themselves; but
these distinctions acquit them of idolatry, and it is the merest justice to
remember this.

(Trench. Ut supra, p. 99.)

I can close this Lecture with no better or wiser words than those with
which Dean Milman reads to us the lesson of this mournful story: "There
was this irremediable weakness in the cause of iconoclasm; it was a mere
negative doctrine, a proscription of those sentiments which had full
possession of the popular mind, without any strong countervailing
excitement. The senses were robbed of their habitual and cherished objects
of devotion, but there was no awakening of an inner life of intense and
passionate piety. The cold, naked walls from whence the Scriptural
histories had been effaced, the despoiled shrines, the mutilated images,
could not compel the mind to a more pure and immaterial conception of
God and the Savior. Hatred of images, in the process of the strife, might

1323

become, as it did, a fanaticism, it could never become a religion. Iconoclasm
might proscribe idolatry; but it had no power of kindling a purer faith."

1324

THE DECREE OF THE HOLY, GREAT,
ECUMENICAL SYNOD, THE SECOND OF NICE

(Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia. Tom. VII., col. 552.)

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the
will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his
mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious
metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia,
having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as
follows:

Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of
himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness,
having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or
defect, promised that he would so preserve her: and gave his word to this
effect to his holy disciples when he said: "Lo! I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world," which promise he made, not only to them, but
to us also who should believe in his name through their word. But some,
not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the
temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for,
withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church, they have erred
from the truth and as the proverb saith: "The husbandmen have gone
astray in their own husbandry and have gathered in their hands
nothingness," because certain priests, priests in name only, not in fact, had
dared to speak against the God-approved ornament of the sacred
monuments, of whom God cries aloud through the prophet, "Many
pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion."

And, forsooth, following profane men, led astray by their carnal sense,
they have calumniated the Church of Christ our God, which he hath
espoused to himself, and have failed to distinguish between holy and
profane, styling the images of our Lord and of his Saints by the same name
as the statues of diabolical idols. Seeing which things, our Lord God (not
willing to behold his people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath of

1325

his good pleasure called us together, the chief of his priests, from every
quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our
princes, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the traditions of the
Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree. Therefore,
with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and
following the trend of the truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but
we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church,
and following the Six Ecumenical Synods, especially that which met in this
illustrious metropolis of Nice, as also that which was afterwards gathered
together in the God-protected Royal City.

We believe... life of the world to come. Amen.

We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd
opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled
"Foes of the Spirit" (Pneumatomachi). We confess that our Lady, St.
Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the
Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ
our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of
the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught
that there were two Persons [in Christ] . With the Fathers of this synod we
confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and
Ever- Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and
perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling
from the divine Atrium (ocu^f|<;) as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus;
and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others,
blaspheming in divers fashions. Moreover, with these we anathematize the
fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the decision
of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there
be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as
also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius,
Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and
all those who are unwilling to be reverent.

To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical
traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which
is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the
preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but

1326

especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown
forth as real and not merely fantastic, for these have mutual indications
and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired
authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church
(for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude
and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so
also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of
other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on
the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures
both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and
Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the
honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much
more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much
more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a
longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and
honorable reverence (6ca7tocajj,bv koci Tijir|TiKf|v 7tpooidjvr|oiv) not
indeed that true worship of faith (Xocxpeiocv) which pertains alone to the
divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving
Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects,
incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For
the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image
represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject
represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition
of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath
received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in
Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers,
holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing
prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, "Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with
all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy
adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is
a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be
unto thee forever."

Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked
heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty,

1327

or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g.,
the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons,
or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything
subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to
common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be
Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics,
that they be cut off from communion.

[After all had signed, the acclamations began (col. 576).]

The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all
give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is
the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole
world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the
honorable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those
who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For
we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the
laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take
anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced
novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We
place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who
presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture
about, idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable
images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to
those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods.
Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except
Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the
Catholic Church received idols.

Many years to the Emperors, etc., etc.

1328

EXCURSUS ON THE PRESENT TEACHING OF THE LATIN AND
GREEK CHURCHES ON THE SUBJECT.

To set forth the present teaching of the Latin Church upon the subject of
images and the cultus which is due them, I cite the decree of the Council of
Trent and a passage from the Catechism set forth by the authority of the
same synod.

(Cone. Trid., Sess. 25:December 3d and 4th, 1563. [Buckley's Trans.])

The holy synod enjoins on all bishops, and others sustaining the office and
charge of teaching that, according to the usage of the Catholic and
Apostolic Church received from the primitive times of the Christian
religion, and according to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the
decrees of sacred councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently
touching the intercession and invocation of saints; the honor paid to relics;
and the lawful use of images — teaching them, that the saints, who reign
together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is
good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to resort to their prayers,
aid and help, for obtaining benefits from God, through his Son, Jesus
Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Savior; but that they
think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in
heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for
men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us, even in
particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is
opposed to the honor of the one mediator between God and men, Christ
Jesus, or, that it is foolish to supplicate, orally or inwardly, those who
reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others
now living with Christ, which were the living members of Christ, and the
temples of the Holy Ghost, and which are by him to be raised unto eternal
life, and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, through which
[bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who
affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of saints; or, that
these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honored by the faithful;
and that the places dedicated to the memories of the Saints are vainly

1329

visited for the purpose of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned,
as the Church has already long since condemned, and doth now also
condemn them.

Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God and of
the other Saints, are to be bad and retained particularly in temples, and
that due honor and veneration are to be awarded them; not that any
divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to
be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or that confidence
is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by Gentiles, who placed
their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown unto them is
referred to the prototypes which they represent; in such wise that by the
images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and
prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the Saints, whose
similitude they bear. And this, by the decrees of councils, and especially
of the second synod of Nicaea, has been ordained against the opponents of
images.

And the bishops shall carefully teach this; that, by means of the histories
of the mysteries of our Redemption, depicted by paintings or other
representations, the people are instructed, and strengthened in
remembering, and continually reflecting on the articles of faith; as also that
great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people
are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts which have been
bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles of God
through the means of the Saints, and their salutary examples, are set before
the eyes of the faithful; that so, for those things they may give God
thanks; may order their own life and manners in imitation of the Saints;
and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if
any one shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary
observances, the holy synod earnestly desires that they be utterly
abolished; in such wise that no images conducive to false doctrine, and
furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if
at times, when it shall be expedient for the unlearned people, it happen
that the histories and narratives of Holy Scripture are portrayed and
represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity
represented, as though it could be perceived by the eyes of the body, or be

1330

depictured by colors or figures. Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the
veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall
be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally, all lasciviousness be
avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a
wantonness of beauty: nor shall men also pervert the celebration of the
saints, and the visitation of relics, into revelings and drunkenness; as if
festivals are celebrated to the honest of the saints by luxury and
wantonness. Finally, let so great care and diligence be used by bishops
touching these matters, as that there appear nothing disorderly, or
unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing profane, nothing
indecorous; since holiness becometh the house of God.

And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy synod
ordains, that it be lawful for no one to place, or cause to be placed, any
unusual image in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except it shall
have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be
admitted, or new relics received, unless the said bishop has taken
cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some
certain information in regard of these matters shall, after having taken
advice with theologians, and other pious men, act therein as he shall judge
to be agreeable to truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse is
to be extirpated, or, in fine, if any more serious question shall arise
touching these matters, the bishop, before he decides the controversy,
shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the same
province, in a provincial council; yet so, that nothing new, or that has not
previously been usual in the Church, shall be decreed, without the most
holy Roman Pontiff having been first consulted.

(Catechism of the Council of Trent. Pt. IV., chap. VI. [Buckley's trans.])

Question III.

God and the Saints addressed differently.

From God and from the Saints we implore assistance not after the same
manner: for we implore God to grant us the blessing which we want, or to
deliver us from evils; but the Saints, because favorites with God, we solicit
to undertake our advocacy with God, to obtain of him for us those things
of which we stand in need. Hence we employ two different forms of

1331

prayer: for to God, we properly say, gave mercy on us, hear us; to the
saints, Pray for us.

Question IV.

In what Manner we may beseech the Saints to have mercy on us.

We may, however, also ask the saints themselves to have mercy on us, for
they are most merciful; but we do so on a different principle, for we may
beseech them that, touched with the misery of our condition, they would
interpose, in our behalf, their favor and intercession with God. In the
performance of this duty, it is most strictly incumbent on all, to beware
lest they transfer to any creature the right which belongs exclusively to the
Deity; and when we repeat before the image of any Saint the Lord's
Prayer, our idea must then be to beg of the Saint to pray with us, and ask
for us those favor that are contained in the form of the Lord's Prayer, to
become, in fine, our interpreter and intercessor with God; for that this is
an office which the saints discharge, St. John the apostle has taught in the
Revelation.

The doctrine of the Eastern Church may be seen from the following from
The Orthodox Confession of the faith of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church of the East.

(Confes. Orthodox. P. III. Q. LII. [apud Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesioe
Orientalis].)

Rightly therefore do we honor the Saints of God, as it is written (Psalm
cxxxix. 17) "How dear are thy friends unto me, O God." And divine
assistance we ask for through them, just as God ordered the friends of Job
to go to his faithful servant, and that he should offer sacrifice and pray for
them that they might obtain remission of sin through their patronage. And
in the second place this [First] commandment forbids men to adore any
creature with the veneration of adoration (XocTpeiocc;). For we do not
honor the Saints as though adoring them, but we call upon them as our
brothers, and as friends of God, and therefore we seek the divine
assistance through these, our brethren. For they go between the Lord and
us for our advantage. And this in no respect is opposed to this
commandment of the decalogue.

1332

Wherefore just as the Israelites did not sin when they called upon Moses
to mediate between them and God, so neither do we sin, when we call for
the aid and intercession of the Saints.

(Ibid. Quaestio LIV.)

This [Second] Commandment is separate from the first. For that treated of
the Unity of the true God, forbidding and taking away the multitude of
gods. But the present treats of external religious ceremonies. For besides
the not honoring of false gods, we ought to dedicate no carved likeness in
their honor, nor to venerate with adoration such things, nor to offer the
sacrifices of adoration to them. Therefore they sin against this
commandment who venerate idols as gods, and offer sacrifices to them,
and place their whole confidence and hope in them; as also the Psalmist
says (Psalm cxxxv. 15), "The images of the heathen are silver and gold,
etc." They also transgress this precept who are given up to covetousness,
etc.

(Ibid. Quaestio LV.)

There is a great distinction between idols and images (xcov e'iScoXcov koci
t(Sv eiKovcov). For idols are the figments and inventions of men, as the
Apostle testifies when he says (1 Corinthians 8:4), "We know that an idol
is nothing in the world." But an image is a representation of a true thing
having a real existence in the world. Thus, for example, the image of our
Savior Jesus Christ and of the holy Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints.
Moreover, the Pagans venerated their idols as gods, and offered to them
sacrifices, esteeming the gold and silver to be God, as did Nebuchadnezzar.

But when we honor and venerate the images, we in no way venerate the
colors or the wood of which they are made; but we glorify with the
veneration of dulia (Soi>^eioc<;) those holy beings of which these are the
images, making them by this means present to our minds as if we could see
them with our eyes. For this reason we venerate the image of the
crucifixion, and place before our minds Christ hung upon the cross for our
salvation, and to such like we bow the head, and bend the knee with
thanksgiving. Likewise we venerate the image of the Virgin Mary, we lift
up our mind to her the most holy Mother of God, bowing both head and
knees before her; calling her blessed above all men and women, with the

1333

Archangel Gabriel. The veneration, moreover, of the holy images as
received in the orthodox Church, in no respect transgresses this
commandment.

But this is not one and the same with that we offer to God; nor do the
orthodox give it to the art of the painting, but to those very Saints whom
the images represent. The Cherubim which overshadowed the mercy-seat,
representing the true Cherubim which stand before God in heaven, the
Israelites revered and honored without any violation of the commandment
of God, and likewise the children of Israel revered the tabernacle of
witness with a suitable honor (2. Samuel 6:13), and yet in no respect
sinned nor set at naught this precept, but rather the more glorified God.
From these considerations it is evident that when we honor the holy
images, we do not transgress the commandment of the decalogue, but we
most especially praise God, who is "to be admired in his Saints" (Psalm
68:35). But this only we should be careful of, that every image has a label,
telling of what Saint it is, that thus the intention of him who venerates it
may be the more easily fulfilled.

And for the greater establishment of the veneration of the holy images, the
Church of God at the Seventh Ecumenical Synod anathematized all those
who made war against the images, and set forth the veneration of the
august images, and established it forever, as is evident from the ninth
canon of that synod.

(Ibid. Quaestio LVI.)

Why was he praised in the Old Testament who broke down the brazen
serpent (2. Kings. 18:4) which long before Moses had set up on high?
Answer: Because the Jews were beginning an apostasy from the
veneration of the true God, venerating that serpent as the true God; and
offering to it incense as the Scripture saith. Therefore wishing to cut off
this evil, lest it might spread further, he broke up that serpent in order that
the Israelites might have no longer that incentive to idolatry. But before
they honored the serpent with the veneration of adoration, no one was
condemned in that respect nor was the serpent broken.

But Christians in no respect honor images as gods, neither in their
veneration do they take anything from the true adoration due to God. Nay,

1334

rather they are led by the hand, as it were, by the image to God, while
under their visible representations they honor the Saints with the
veneration of dulia (SouXikcoc;) as the friends of God; asking for their
mediation (pecrcie'uo'UGiv) to the Lord. And if perchance some have
strayed, from their lack of knowledge, in their veneration, it were better to
teach such an one, rather than that the veneration of the august images
should be banished from the Church.

1335

THE CANONS OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL
SEVENTH COUNCIL.

CANON I

That the sacred Canons are in all things to be observed.

The pattern for those who have received the sacerdotal dignity is found in
the testimonies and instructions laid down in the canonical constitutions,
which we receiving with a glad mind, sing unto the Lord God in the words
of the God-inspired David, saying: "I have had as great delight in the way
of thy testimonies as in all manner of riches." "Thou hast commanded
righteousness as thy testimonies for ever." "Grant me understanding and I
shall live." Now if the word of prophesy bids us keep the testimonies of
God forever and to live by them, it is evident that they must abide
unshaken and without change. Therefore Moses, the prophet of God,
speaketh after this manner: "To them nothing is to be added, and from
them nothing is to be taken away." And the divine Apostle glorying in
them cries out, "which things the angels desire to look into," and, "if an
angel preach to you anything besides that which ye have received, let him
be anathema." Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us,
we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our
bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the
same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by
the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six
Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating
the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers. For
all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, defined such things as were
expedient. Accordingly those whom they placed under anathema, we
likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those
whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate; and those whom
they delivered over to punishment, we subject to the same penalty. And

1336

now "let your conversation be without covetousness," crieth out Paul the
divine Apostle, who was caught up into the third heaven and heard
unspeakable words.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I

We gladly embrace the Divine Canons, viz.: those of the Holy Apostles, of
the Six Ecumenical Synods, as also of the local synods and of our Holy
Fathers, as inspired by one and the same Holy Spirit. Whom they
anathematize we also anathematize; whom they depose, we depose; whom
they cut off, we cut off; and whom they subject to penalties, we also so
subject.

HARNACK

(Hist, of Dogma [Eng. Trans.], Vol. V., p. 327).

Just as at Trent, in addition to the restoration of mediaeval doctrine, a
series of reforming decrees was published, so this Synod promulgated
twenty-two canons which can be similarly described. The attack on
monachism and the constitution of the Church had been of some use. They
are the best canons drawn up by an Ecumenical Synod. The bishops were
enjoined to study, to live simply, and be unselfish, and to attend to the
cure of souls; the monks to observe order, decorum, and also to be
unselfish. With the State and the Emperor no compromise was made; on
the contrary, the demands of Maximus Confessor and John of Damascus
are heard, though in muffled tones, from the canons.

1337

VAN ESPEN

From the wording of this canon it is clearly seen that by the Fathers of
this Council the canons commonly called "Apostolical" are attributed to
the Apostles themselves as to their true authors, conformably to the
Trullan Synod and to the opinion then prevalent among the Greeks.

For since the Fathers were well persuaded that the discipline and doctrine
contained in these canons could be received and confirmed, they cared but
little to enquire anxiously who were their true authors, being content in
this question to follow and embrace the then commonly received opinion,
and to ascribe these canons to them, just as, the other day, the Tridentine
Synod (Sess. XXV., cap. j., De Reform) calls these, without any
explanation, the "Canons of the Apostles," because then as now they were
commonly called by that name.

BEVERIDGE

(Annotat., p. 166, at end of Vol. II.).

Here are recognized and confirmed the canons set forth by the Six
Ecumenical Councils. And although all agree that the fifth and sixth
Synods adopted no canons, unless that those of the Council in Trullo be
attributed to them, yet when Tarasius the Patriarch of Constantinople
claimed Canon 82 of the Trullan Canons as having been set forth by the
sixth synod (as is evident from the annotations on that canon), all the
canons of Trullo seem to be confirmed as having issued from the Sixth
Synod. Or else, perchance, as is supposed by Balsamon and Zonaras, as
also by this present synod, the Trullan was held to be Quinisext
(7tev9eKTT|), and the canons decreed by it to belong to both the fifth and
the sixth council. Otherwise I do not see what meaning these words ["of
the Six Ecumenical Synods"] can have, for it will be remembered that the
reference is to the ecclesiastical canons of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and
not to their dogmatic decrees.

1338

CANON II

That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to
observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained.

When we recite the psalter, we promise God: "I will meditate upon thy
statutes, and will not forget thy words." It is a salutary thing for all
Christians to observe this, but it is especially incumbent upon those who
have received the sacerdotal dignity. Therefore we decree, that every one
who is raised to the rank of the episcopate shall know the psalter by heart,
so that from it he may admonish and instruct all the clergy who are subject
to him. And diligent examination shall be made by the metropolitan
whether he be zealously inclined to read diligently, and not merely now
and then, the sacred canons, the holy Gospel, and the book of the divine
Apostle, and all other divine Scripture; and whether he lives according to
God's commandments, and also teaches the same to his people. For the
special treasure (oxxnoc) of our high priesthood is the oracles which have
been divinely delivered to us, that is the true science of the Divine
Scriptures, as says Dionysius the Great. And if his mind be not set, and
even glad, so to do and teach, let him not be ordained. For says God by the
prophet, "Thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou
shalt be no priest to me."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II

Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart: he must
thoroughly understand what he reads, and not merely superficially, but
with diligent care, that is to say the Sacred Canons, the Holy Gospel, the
book of the Apostle, and the whole of the Divine Scripture. And should he
not have such knowledge, he is not to be ordained.

1339

ARISTENUS.

Whoso is to be elevated to the grade of the episcopate should know... the
book of the Apostle Paul, and the whole divine scripture and search out its
meaning and understand the things that are written. For the very
foundation and essence of the high priesthood is the true knowledge of
holy Scripture, according to Dionysius the Great. And if he has this
knowledge let him be ordained, but if not, not. For God hath said by the
prophet: "Thou hast put away from thee knowledge, therefore I have also
put thee away from me, that thou mayest not be my priest."

FLEURY.

The persecution of the Iconoclasts had driven all the best Christians into
hiding, or into far distant exile; this had made them rustic, and had taken
from them their taste for study. The council therefore is forced to be
content with a knowledge of only what is absolutely necessary, provided
it was united with a willingness to learn. The examination with which the
ceremony of the ordination of bishops begins seems to be a remains of this
discipline.

VAN ESPEN

The Synod teaches in this canon that "all Christians" will find it most
profitable to meditate upon God's justifyings and to keep his words in
remembrance, and especially is this the ease with bishops.

And it should be noted that formerly not only the clergy, but also the lay
people, learned the Psalms, that is the whole Psalter, by heart, and made a
most sweet sound by chanting them while about their work.

But as time went on, little by little this pious custom of reciting the
Psalter and of imposing its recitation and a meditation thereon at certain
intervals, slipped away to the clergy only and to monks and nuns, as to

1340

those specially consecrated to the service of God and to meditation upon
the divine words, as Lupus points out. And from this discipline and
practice the appointment of the Ecclesiastical or Canonical Office had its
rise, which imposes the necessity of reciting the Psalms at certain intervals
of time.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xxxviij., C. vj., in Anastasius's translation.

1341

CANON III

That it does not pertain to princes to choose a Bishop.

Let every election of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, made by princes
stand null, according to the canon which says: If any bishop making use of
the secular powers shall by their means obtain jurisdiction over any
church, he shall be deposed, and also excommunicated, together with all
who remain in communion with him. For he who is raised to the
episcopate must be chosen by bishops, as was decreed by the holy fathers
of Nice in the canon which says: It is most fitting that a bishop be
ordained by all the bishops in the province; but if this is difficult to
arrange, either on account of urgent necessity, or because of the length of
the journey, three bishops at least having met together and given their
votes, those also who are absent having signified their assent by letters,
the ordination shall take place. The confirmation of what is thus done,
shall in each province be given by the metropolitan thereof.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III

Every election made by a secular magistrate is null.

This is a canon of a synod recognized by East and West as ecumenical!
The reader can hardly resist the reflection that in this case there have been
and are a great many intruding clergymen in the world, whose appointment
to their several offices is "null." Van Espen, however, suggests an
ingenious way out of the difficulty, which is followed with great approval
by Hefele.

1342

VAN ESPEN

Canon 29:of those commonly called Apostolic, and canon 4:of Nice are
renewed in this canon.

From the words of this canon it is sufficiently clear that in this canon the
synod is treating of the choice and intrusion of persons into ecclesiastical
offices which the magistrates and Princes had arrogated to themselves
under the title of Domination (Dominatio); and by no means of that choice
or rather nomination which Catholic princes and kings have everywhere
and always used.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Dist. xciii., C. vij.

1343

CANON IV

That Bishops are to abstain from all receiving of gifts.

The Church's herald, Paul the divine Apostle, laying down a rule
(kocvovoc) not only for the presbyters of Ephesus but for the whole
company of the priesthood, speaks thus explicitly, saying, "I have
coveted no man's silver or gold, or apparel. I have shewed you all things,
how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak;" for he accounted it
more blessed to give. Therefore we being taught by him do decree, that
under no circumstances, shall a Bishop for the sake of filthy lucre invent
feigned excuses for sins, and exact gold or silver or other gifts from the
bishops, clergy, or monks who are subject to him. For says the Apostle,
"The unrighteous shall not possess the kingdom of God," and, "The
children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the
children." If then any is found, who for the sake of exacting gold or any
other gift, or who from personal feeling, has suspended from the ministry,
or even excommunicated, any of the clergy subject to his jurisdiction, or
who has closed any of the venerable temples, so that the service of God
may not be celebrated in it, pouring out his madness even upon things
insensible, and thus shewing himself to be without understanding, he shall
be subjected to the same punishment he devised for others, and his trouble
shall return on his own head, as a transgressor of God's commandment and
of the apostolic precepts. For Peter the supreme head (f| Keptxpocioc
6cKp6xr|<;) of the Apostles commands, "Feed the flock of God which is
among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly;
not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over the
clergy (xcov K^r|pcov [A. V. God's heritage]); but being ensamples to the
flock. And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown
of glory that fadeth not away."

NOTES

1344

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV

We decree that no bishop shall extort gold or silver, or anything else from
bishops, clerics, or monks subject to his jurisdiction. And if anyone
through the power of gold or of any other thing or through his own whims,
shall be found to have prevented any one of the clergy who are subject to
him, from the celebration of the holy offices, or shall have shut up a
venerable temple so that the sacred worship of God could not be
performed in it, he shall be subject to the lex talionis. For Peter the Apostle
says: Feed the flock of God, not of necessity but willingly, and according to
God; not for filthy lucre 's sake, but with a prompt mind; not exercising
lordship over the clergy, but being an example to the flock.

BALSAMON

Note the present canon, which punishes those bishops by the lex talionis,
who for filthy lucre's sake, or out of private affection, separate any from
themselves, or close temples. Wherefore he who cuts off others thus, let
him be cut off. But he who shuts off a temple shall be punished even more
than by cutting off. But lest any one should say, by the argument a
contrario, that a bishop should not be punished who neither for the sake of
filthy lucre nor out of private spite, but lawfully cuts some off, or closes
temples, I answer that this argument only holds good of the cutting off.
For a bishop who for any reason, whether just or unjust, shuts up a
temple, should be punished, so it seems to me, as I have said above.

VAN ESPEN

It would seem that at that time among the Greeks the use of local interdict
(interdicti localis) was not known. But very many theologians wish to find
a vestige of this interdict in the IVth century, in St. Basil's epistle cclxx.
(otherwise ccxliv.), where the holy doctor teaches that the person who
carries off by force a virgin, and those who are cognizant of this
wickedness ought to be smitten with excommunication, and that the village

1345

or its inhabitants, to which the ravisher shall escape and where he shall be
kept in safety, shall be shut out from the prayers.

This canon, or rather the first part of it, is found in the Corpus Juris
Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XVI., Q. I., Canon lxiv.; all
the latter part is represented by the words "et infra."

1346

CANON V

That they who cast contumely upon clerics because they have been
ordained in the church without bringing a gift with them, are to be
published with a fine.

It is a sin unto death when men incorrigibly continue in their sin, but they
sin more deeply, who proudly lifting themselves up oppose piety and
sincerity, accounting mammon of more worth than obedience to God, and
caring nothing for his canonical precepts. The Lord God is not found
among such, unless, perchance, having been humbled by their own fall,
they return to a sober mind. It behooves them the rather to turn to God
with a contrite heart and to pray for forgiveness and pardon of so grave a
sin, and no longer to boast in an unholy gift. For the Lord is nigh unto
them that are of a contrite heart. With regard, therefore, to those who pride
themselves that because of their benefactions of gold they were ordained in
the Church, and resting confidently in this evil custom (so alien from God
and inconsistent with the whole priesthood), with a proud look and open
mouth vilify with abusive words those who on account of the strictness of
their life were chosen by the Holy Ghost and have been ordained without
any gift of money, we decree in the first place that they take the lowest
place in their order; but if they do not amend let them be subjected to a
fine. But if it appear that any one has done this [i.e., given money], at any
time as a price for ordination, let him be dealt with according to the
Apostolic Canon which says: "If a bishop has obtained possession of his
dignity by means of money (the same rule applies also to a presbyter or
deacon) let him be deposed and also the one who ordained him, and let him
also be altogether cut off from communion, even as Simon Magus was by
me Peter." To the same effect is the second canon of our holy fathers of
Chalcedon, which says: If any bishop gives ordination in return for
money, and puts up for sale that which cannot be sold, and ordains for
money a bishop or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other of
those who are reckoned among the clergy; or who for money shall appoint
anyone to the office of oeconomus, advocate, or paramonarius; or, in a
word, who hath done anything else contrary to the canon, for the sake of

1347

filthy lucre — he who hath undertaken to do anything of this sort, having
been convicted, shall be in danger of losing his degree. And he who has
been ordained shall derive no advantage from the ordination or promotion
thus negotiated; but let him remain a stranger to the dignity and
responsibility which he attained by means of money. And if any one shall
appear to have acted as a go-between in so shameful and godless a traffic,
lie also, if he be a cleric, shall be removed from his degree; if he be a layman
or a monk, let him be excommunicated.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V

It seems that such as glory in the fact that they owe their position to their
liberality in gold to the Church, and who contemn those who were chosen
because of their virtue and were appointed without any largess, should
receive the lowest place in their order. And should they continue in their
ways, let them be punished. But those who made such gifts so as to get
ordinations, let such be cast forth from communion, as Simon Magus was
by Peter.

HEFELE

Zonaras and Balsamon in earlier times, and later Christian Lupus and Van
Espen, remarked that the second part of this canon treats of simony, but
not the first. This has in view rather those who, on account of their large
expenditure on churches and the poor, have been raised, without simony,
to the clerical estate as a reward and recognition of their beneficence; and
being proud of this, now depreciate other clergymen who were unable or
unwilling to make such foundations and the like.

1348

CANON VI

Concerning the homing of a local Synod at the time appointed.

Since there is a canon which says, twice a year in each province, the
canonical enquiries shall be made in the gatherings of the bishops; but
because of the inconveniences which those who thus came together had to
undergo in traveling, the holy fathers of the Sixth Council decreed that
once each year, without regard to place or excuse which might be urged, a
council should be held and the things which are amiss corrected. This
canon we now renew. And if any prince be found hindering this being
carried out, let him be excommunicated. But if any of the metropolitans
shall take no care that this be done, he being free from constraint or fear or
other reasonable excuse, let him be subjected to the canonical penalties.
While the council is engaged in considering the canons or matters which
have regard to the Gospel, it behooves the assembled Bishops, with all
attention and grave thought to guard the divine and life-giving
commandments of God, for in keeping of them there is great reward;
because our lamp is the commandment, and our light is the law, and trial
and discipline are the way of life, and the commandment of the Lord
shining afar giveth light to the eyes. It is not permitted to a metropolitan
to demand any of those things which the bishops bring with them,
whether it be a horse or any other gift. If he be convicted of doing anything
of this sort, he shall restore fourfold.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI

Whenever it is not possible for a synod to meet according to the decree
formulated long ago, twice in each year, at least let it be held once, as
seemed good to the Sixth Synod. Should any magistrate forbid such

1349

meeting, let him be cast out: and a bishop who shall take no pains to
assemble it, shall be subject to punishment. And when the synod is held,
should it appear that the Metropolitan has taken anything away from any
bishop, let him restore four-fold.

HEFELE

Anastasius remarks on this, that this ordinance (whether the whole canon
or only its last passage must remain undecided) was not accepted by the
Latins. That this canon did not forbid the so-called Synodic um, which the
metropolitans had lawfully to receive from the bishops, and the bishops
from the priests, is remarked by Van Espen, 1. c. p. 464.

Compare with this (as Balsamon advises) the eighth canon of the Council
in Trullo.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars L, Dist. XVIIL, C. vij.

1350

CANON VII

That to churches consecrated without any deposit of the reliques of the
Saints, the defect should be made good.

Paul the divine Apostle says: "The sins of some are open beforehand,
and some they follow after." These are their primary sins, and other sins
follow these. Accordingly upon the heels of the heresy of the traducers of
the Christians, there followed close other ungodliness. For as they took
out of the churches the presence of the venerable images, so likewise they
cast aside other customs which we must now revive and maintain in
accordance with the written and unwritten law. We decree therefore that
relics shall be placed with the accustomed service in as many of the sacred
temples as have been consecrated without the relics of the Martyrs. And if
any bishop from this time forward is found consecrating a temple without
holy relics, he shall be deposed, as a transgressor of the ecclesiastical
traditions.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VH

Let reliques of the Holy Martyrs be placed in such churches as have been
consecrated without them, and this with the accustomed prayers. But
whoever shall consecrate a church without these shall be deposed as a
transgressor of the traditions of the Church.

BALSAMON,

But someone may be surprised that oratories today are consecrated
without any deposition of reliques. And they may ask why the Divine

1351

Liturgy is not celebrated in them by bishops and not by priests only. The
answer is that the superaltars (dvci|xevGioc) which are made by the
bishops when a church is consecrated, suffice oratories in lieu of
consecration or enthronement when they are sent to them, on the occasion
of their dedication or opening. They are called dvxipevaia because they
are in place of, and are antitypes of those many like tables which furnish
thoroughly the holy Lord's table. On the rite of consecrating churches
with reliques see Cardinal Bona. (De Rebus Lit., Lib. I., cap. xix.)

The Antimensia are consecrated at the same time as the church; a full
account of the ceremony is found in the Euchologion (Goar's ed., p. 648).
A piece of cloth is placed on the altar and blessed, and then subsequently,
as need requires, pieces are cut off from it and sent to the various
oratories, etc. The main outline of the ceremony of consecration is as
follows.

J. M. NEALE. (Int. Hist. East. Ch. p. 187.)

Relics being pounded up with fragrant gum, oil is poured over them by the
bishop, and, distilling out to the corporals, is supposed to convey to them
the mysterious virtues of the relics themselves. The holy Eucharist must
then be celebrated on them for seven days, after which they are sent forth
as they are wanted.

1352

CANON vm

That Hebrews ought not to be received unless they have been converted in
sincerity of heart.

Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to
mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of
Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and
observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not
received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church; but let them
be openly Hebrews according to their religion, and let them not bring their
children to baptism, nor purchase or possess a slave. But if any of them,
out of a sincere heart and in faith, is converted and makes profession with
his whole heart, setting at naught their customs and observances, and so
that others may be convinced and converted, such an one is to be received
and baptized, and his children likewise; and let them be taught to take care
to hold aloof from the ordinances of the Hebrews. But if they will not do
this, let them in no wise be received.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII

Hebrews must not be received unless they are manifestly converted with
sincerity of heart.

HEFELE

The Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras understood the words
"nor to baptize their children" to mean, "these seeming Christians may not

1353

'baptize their own children," because they only seem to be Christians. But
parents were never allowed to baptize their own children, and the true
sense of the words in question comes out clearly from the second half of
the canon.

1354

CANON IX

That none of the books containing the heresy of the traducers of the
Christians are to be hid.

All the childish devices and mad ravings which have been falsely written
against the venerable images, must be delivered up to the Episcopium of
Constantinople, that they may be locked away with other heretical books.
And if anyone is found hiding such books, if he be a bishop or presbyter
or deacon, let him be deposed; but if he be a monk or layman, let him be
anathema.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX

If any one is found to have concealed a book written against the venerable
images, if he is on the clergy list let him be deposed; if a layman or monk
let him be cut off.

VAN ESPEN

What here is styled Episcopium was the palace of the Patriarch. In this
palace were the archives, and this was called the "Cartophylacium," in
which the charts and episcopal laws were laid up. To this there was a
prefect, the grand Chartophylax, one of the principal officials and of most
exalted dignity of the Church of Constantinople, whose office Codinus
explains as follows: "The Chartophylax has in his keeping all the charts
which pertain to ecclesiastical law (that is to say the letters in which
privileges and other rights of the Church are contained) and is the judge of
all ecclesiastical causes, and presides over marriage controversies which are
taken cognizance of, and proceedings for dissolution of the marriage bond;

1355

moreover, he is judge in other clerical strifes, as the right hand of the
Patriarch."

In this Cartophylaceum or Archives, therefore, under the faithful
guardianship of the Chartophylax, the fathers willed that the writings of
the Iconoclasts should be laid up, lest in their perusal simple Catholics
might be led astray.

1356

CANON X

That no cleric ought to leave his diocese and go into another without the
knowledge of the Bishop.

Since certain of the clergy, misinterpreting the canonical constitutions,
leave their own diocese and run into other dioceses, especially into this
God-protected royal city, and take up their abode with princes, celebrating
liturgies in their oratories, it is not permitted to receive such persons into
any house or church without the license of their own Bishop and also that
of the Bishop of Constantinople. And if any clerk shall do this without
such license, and shall so continue, let him be deposed. With regard to
those who have done this with the knowledge of the aforesaid Bishops, it
is not lawful for them to undertake mundane and secular responsibilities,
since this is forbidden by the sacred canons. And if anyone is discovered
holding the office of those who are called Meizoteroi; let him either lay it
down, or be deposed from the priesthood. Let him rather be the instructor
of the children and others of the household, reading to them the Divine
Scriptures, for to this end he received the priesthood.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X

A clergyman who after leaving his own parish has settled in another far off
from his own bishop and from the bishop of Constantinople, shall be
received neither into house nor church. And if he shall persevere in his
course, he shall be deposed. But if they shall do this with a knowledge of
what we have said, they shall not receive a secular position; or should they
have received them, they shall cease from them. And if they refuse they
shall be deposed.

1357

HEFELE

On the office of the u-ei^rcepoi, the Greek commentators Zonaras and
Balsamon give us more exact information. We give the substance of it, viz.
they were majores domus stewards of the estates of high personages.

BALSAMON

On account of this canon it seems to me that the most holy Patriarch at
the time and his Chartophylax allow alien clergymen to celebrate the
liturgy, in this royal city, even without letters dimissory of the local
bishop of each one.

1358

CANON XI

That Oeconomi ought to be in the Episcopal palaces and in the
Monasteries.

Since we are under obligation to guard all the divine canons, we ought by
all means to maintain in its integrity that one which says oeconomi are to
be in each church. If the metropolitan appoints in his Church an
oeconomus, he does well; but if he does not, it is permitted to the Bishop
of Constantinople by his own (iSioc<;) authority to choose an oeconomus
for the Church of the Metropolitan. A like authority belongs to the
metropolitans, if the Bishops who are subject to them do not wish to
appoint oeconomi in their churches. The same rule is also to be observed
with respect to monasteries.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI

If the Metropolitan does not elect an oeconomus of the metropolis, the
patriarch shall do so. If the bishop shall not do so, the Metropolitan shall;
for so it seemed good to the fathers assembled at Chalcedon. The same law
shall hold in monasteries.

HEFELE

The Synod of Chalcedon required the appointment of special oeonomi
only for all bishops' churches; but our synod extended this prescription
also to monasteries.

1359

VAN ESPEN

Bishops at their ordination among other things promise that they will
observe the canons, and the bishops of the Synod say that among these
canons they are bound to keep the one that orders them to appoint an
Oeconomus.

Among the officials of the Constantinopolitan Church, Codinus names
first The Grand (Economus, "who" (he says) "holds in his oxen power all
the faculties of the Church, and all their returns; and is the dispenser in
this matter as well to the Patriarch as to the Church."

Balsamon and Aristenus refer to Canon xxvj. of Chalcedon; and point out
how here the power of Constantinople was added to.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars. II., Causa IX., Quaest. III., Canon iij.

1360

CANON XII

That a Bishop or Hegumenos ought not to alienate any part of the
suburban estate of the church.

If bishop or hegumenos is found alienating any part of the farm lands of
the bishoprick or monastery into the hands of secular princes, or
surrendering them to any other person, such act is null according to the
canon of the holy Apostles, which says: "Let the bishop take care of all
the Church's goods, and let him administer the same according as in the
sight of God." It is not lawful for him to appropriate any part himself, or
to confer upon his relations the things which belong to God. If they are
poor let them be helped among the poor; but let them not be used as a
pretext for smuggling away the Church's property. And if it be urged that
the land is only a loss and yields no profit, the place is not on that account
to be given to the secular rulers, who are in the neighborhood; but let it be
given to clergymen or husbandmen. And if they have resorted to dishonest
craft, so that the ruler has bought the land from the husbandman or cleric,
such transaction shall likewise be null, and the land shall be restored to the
bishoprick or monastery. And the bishop or hegumenos doing this shall be
turned out, the bishop from his bishoprick and the hegumenos from his
monastery, as those who wasted what they did not gather.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XH

According to what seemed good to the Holy Apostles, any act of alienation
of the goods of a diocese or of a monastery made by the bishop, or by the
superior of the monastery, shall be null. And the Bishop or Superior who
shall have done this shall be expelled.

1361

VAN ESPEN

As at the time of this Synod by the favor of kings and princes the way
was frequently open to ecclesiastical dignities, clergymen might easily be
induced through ambition to make over to princes some part of the
Church's possessions, if only by so doing they might arrive at the coveted
preferment through their patronage, and then desiring to make good this
simoniacal promise, they studied to transfer the church's goods to their
patrons; with regard to these the present decree of the synod was made.

But because human ambition is cunning, and solicitously seeks a way of
attaining its ends, ambitious clerics tried by various coloring to give a tone
to and to palliate these translations of church-goods to princes and
magistrates, so that they might attain to that they aimed at by the favor of
said princes and magistrates.

Two such pretexts the synod exposes and rejects in the present canon.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars II., Causa XII.,
Quaest. II., canon xix.

1362

CANON xm

That they are worthy of special condemnation who turn the monasteries
into public houses.

During the calamity which was brought to pass in the Churches, because
of our sins, some of the sacred houses, for example, bishops' palaces and
monasteries, were seized by certain men and became public inns. If those
who now hold them choose to give them back, so that they may be
restored to their original use, well and good; but if not, and these persons
are on the sacerdotal list, we command that they be deposed; if they be
monks or laymen, that they be excommunicated, as those who have been
condemned from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and
assigned their place where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,
because they set themselves against the voice of the Lord, which says:
"Make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII

Those who make common diocesan or monastic goods, unless they restore
to the bishop or superior the things belonging to the diocese or monastery,
the whole proceeding shall be null. If they are persons in Holy Orders they
shall be deposed, but if laymen or monks they shall be cast out.

VAN ESPEN

No doubt by "the calamity" here is intended a reference to the troubles
occasioned by the Iconoclasts, during whose time of domination many
nefarious things were perpetrated against the orthodox, and most bitter of

1363

all was the persecution of the monks and priests by Leo the Isaurian and
by his son Constantine Copronymus, both of them supporters of the
Iconoclasts.

And so it came to pass that by this persecution and through the nefarious
vexations of the Iconoclasts, many monks and clerics fled from their
monasteries and left vacant the Episcopia or holy houses, and so it became
easy for people to come in and occupy the empty monasteries and
religious houses, and to turn them to common and profane uses, especially
when the anger of the Emperors and of the Iconoclasts was known to be
fierce against the monks, and such bishops and priests as were
worshippers of images.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars. II., Causa xix.,
Quasar. III., canon v., in Anastasius's version but lacking the opening
words which are supplied by the Roman Correctors.

1364

CANON xrv

That no one without ordination ought to read in the ambo during the
synaxis.

That there is a certain order established in the priesthood is very evident
to all, and to guard diligently the promotions of the priesthood is well
pleasing to God. Since therefore we see certain youths who have received
the clerical tonsure, but who have not yet received ordination from the
bishop, reading in the ambo during the Synaxis, and in doing this violating
the canons, we forbid this to be done (from henceforth,) and let this
prohibition be observed also amongst the monks. It is permitted to each
hegumenos in his own monastery to ordain a reader, if he himself had
received the laying on of hands by a bishop to the dignity of hegumenos,
and is known to be a presbyter. Chorepiscopi may likewise, according to
ancient custom and with the bishop's authorization, appoint readers.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV

No one shall read from the ambon unless he has been ordained by the
bishop. And this shall be in force also among monks. The superior of a
monastery, if he has been ordained by the bishop, may ordain a lector but
only in his own monastery. A chorepiscopus also can make a lector.

BALSAMON

I say therefore from this present canon and from canon 19: that they may
properly be made superiors, who have never received holy orders; since
women may be placed in such positions in our monasteries. And as these

1365

women do not hear confessions, nor make readers, so neither do superiors
do this who are neither monks nor priests, nor could they do this even
with the license of the bishop.

HEFELE

Van Espen (1. c. p. 469 sqq., and Jus Canon., t.i. pt. 31:tit. 31, c. 6),
professes to show (a) that at that time there was no special benediction of
abbots (different from their ordination as priests), and that therefore the
words, "if he (the superior of the monastery) himself is consecrated by the
bishop to the office of hegumenus," and "evidently is a priest," mean the
same; (b) that at the time of our Synod every superior of a monastery, a
prior as well as an abbot, had the power of conferring upon the monks of
his monastery the order of lector; but (c) that the way in which Anastasius
translated the canon (si dumtaxat Abbati manus impositio facta noscatur
ab episcopo secundum morem prceficiendorum abbatum), and the
reception of this translation into the Corpus juris canonici, c.L, Dist. lxix.,
gave occasion to concede the right in question, of ordaining lectors, only to
the solemnly consecrated (and insulated) abbots.

This canon is found (as just noted) in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars I.,
Dist. LXIX, c.j.

1366

CANON XV

That a clerk ought not to be set over two churches.

From henceforth no clergyman shall be appointed over two churches, for
this savors of merchandise and filthy lucre, and is altogether alien from
ecclesiastical custom. We have heard by the very voice of the Lord that,
"No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other." Each one,
therefore, as says the Apostle, in the calling wherein he was called, in the
same he ought to abide, and in one only church to give attendance. For in
the affairs of the Church, what is gained through filthy lucre is altogether
separate from God. To meet the necessities of this life, there are various
occupations, by means of which, if one so desire, let him procure the
things needful for the body. For says the Apostle, "These hands have
ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me."
Occupations of this sort may be obtained in the God-protected city. But
in the country places outside, because of the small number of people, let a
dispensation be granted.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV

Hereafter at Constantinople a cleric may not serve two churches. But in the
outskirts this may be permitted on account of the scarcity men.

VAN ESPEN

This means that in the country or where men are so scarce that each parish
cannot have its own presbyter, one presbyter should be allowed to serve

1367

two churches, not that so he may supply his own need, (as today is
allowed by the combination of benefices), but that so the necessities of the
parishioners may be provided for.

It should be noted that the synod deems it "filthy lucre" and "separate
from God" if ecclesiastical ministries are performed "for the necessaries of
life," and is of opinion that the clergy should seek their support from some
honest employment or work by the example of Paul, rather than to turn
ecclesiastical ministrations to the attaining of temporal things, and to use
these as an art by which to gain bread.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonical Pars. II., Causa XXL,
Quaest. L, canon j. where the gloss is "because there the clergy are few."

1368

CANON XVI.

That it does not become one in holy orders to be clad in costly apparel.

All buffoonery and decking of the body ill becomes the priestly rank.
Therefore those bishops and clerics who array themselves in gay and
showy clothing ought to correct themselves, and if they do not amend
they ought to be subjected to punishment. So likewise they who anoint
themselves with perfumes. When the root of bitterness sprang up, there
was poured into the Catholic Church the pollution of the heresy of the
traducers of the Christians. And such as were defiled by it, not only
detested the pictured images, but also set at naught all decorum, being
exceedingly mad against those who lived gravely and religiously; so that in
them was fulfilled that which is written, "The service of God is
abominable to the sinner." If therefore, any are found deriding those who
are clad in poor and grave raiment, let them be corrected by punishment.
For from early times every man in holy orders wore modest and grave
clothing; and verily whatever is worn, not so much because of necessity,
as for the sake of outward show, savors of dandyism, as says Basil the
Great. Nor did anyone array himself in raiment embroidered with silk, nor
put many colored ornaments on the border of his garments; for they had
heard from the lips of God that "They that wear soft clothing are in kings'
houses."

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI

Bishops and clergymen arraying themselves in splendid clothes and
anointed with perfumes must be corrected. Should they persist, they must
be punished.

1369

Balsamon and Zonaras tell of the magnificence in dress assumed by some
of the superior clergy among the Iconoclasts, wearing stuffs woven with
threads of gold, and their loins girt with golden girdles, and sentences
embroidered in gold on the edge of their raiment. It is curious to note how
often heretics fall into extremes. We have seen how Eustathius wore a
conspicuous garb and was not willing to appear in the ordinary dress of a
clergyman of his day. His was the one extreme of ultra clerical or, I should
say, ascetic clothing. These Iconoclasts went to the other extreme and
dressed themselves like men of the world, giving themselves the dandy airs
of the fops of the day, thus, as always, making themselves ridiculous in
the eyes of the wise, and their office contemptible m the eyes of the
common people.

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum,PsLrs. II., Causa XXL, Qusest. IV., canon j.

1370

CANON XVII

That he shall not be allowed to begin the building of an oratory, who has
not the means wherewith to finish it.

Certain monks having left their monasteries because they desired to rule,
and, unwilling to obey, are undertaking to build oratories, but have not the
means to finish them. Now whoever shall undertake to do anything of this
sort, let him be forbidden by the bishop of the place. But if he have the
means wherewith to finish, let what he has designed be carried on to
completion. The same rule is to be observed with regard to laymen and
clerics.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII

Whoever wishes to build a monastery, if he has the wherewithal to finish it,
let him begin the work, and let him bring it to a conclusion. But if not, let
him be prohibited by the bishop of the place. The same law shall apply to
laymen and monks.

Van Espen refers to Gratian's Decretum, Pars. III., De Consecrat., Dist. I.,
canon ix., et seqq.

Balsamon also refers his readers to the Fourth Book of the Basilica, title I.,
chapter I, which is part of Justinian's cxxiij. Novel, also to the first canon
of the so-called First-and-Second Council held at Constantinople in the
Church of the Holy Apostles.

1371

CANON XVIII.

That women ought not to live in bishops' houses, nor in monasteries of
men.

"Be ye without offense to those who are without," says the divine
Apostle. Now for women to live in Bishops' houses or in monasteries is
ground for grave offense. Whoever therefore is known to have a female
slave or freewoman in the episcopal palace or in a monastery for the
discharge of some service, let him be rebuked. And if he still continue to
retain her, let him be deposed. If it happens that women are on the
suburban estates, and the bishop or hegumenos desires to go thither, so
long as the bishop or hegumenos is present, let no woman at that time
continue her work, but let her betake herself to some other place until the
bishop lot hegumenos] has departed, so that there be no occasion of
complaint.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIH

It is not fitting that women should be kept in episcopal houses or in
monasteries. If anyone shall dare to do so, he shall be reproved; but if he
persists, he shall be deposed. No woman is allowed to serve or even to
appear where a bishop or a superior of a monastery is present, but let her
keep herself apart until he be gone.

VAN ESPEN

Every woman the present canon expels from the Episcopium or bishop's
house, agreeably to Novel CXXIII, chapter 29, of the Emperor Justinian,
which, (although the Nicene canon on the subject makes a mother, sister,

1372

daughter and other persons free from all suspicions, exceptions), admits no
exceptions in the case of a bishop, but says, "We allow no bishop to have
any woman or to live with one."

For as bishops are set in a higher grade above the rest, of the clergy, and
ought to be like lights set on a candlestick to give light, rightly they are
ordered more than others to take care to avoid all appearance of evil, and
to remove all from them that might cause suspicion.

With regard to monks and their houses see Justinian's Novel CXXXIIL,
Cap. IV.

1373

CANON XIX

That the vows of those in holy orders and of monks, and of nuns are to be
made without the exaction of gifts.

The abomination of filthy lucre has made such inroads among the rulers of
the churches, that certain of those who call themselves religious men and
women, forgetting the commandments of the Lord have been altogether led
astray, and for the sake of money have received those presenting
themselves for the sacerdotal order and the monastic life. And hence the
first step of those so received being unlawful, the whole proceeding is
rendered null, as says Basil the Great. For it is not possible that God
should be served by means of mammon. If therefore, anyone is found
doing anything of this kind, if he be a bishop or hegumenos, or one of the
priesthood, either let him cease to do so any longer or else let him be
deposed, according to the second canon of the Holy Council of Chalcedon.
If the offender be an abbess, let her be sent away from her monastery, and
placed in another in a subordinate position. In like manner is a hegumenos
to be dealt with, who has not the ordination of a presbyter. With regard to
what has been given by parents as a dowry for their children, or which
persons themselves have contributed out of their own property, with the
declaration that such gifts were made to God, we have decreed, that
whether the persons in whose behalf the gifts were made, continue to live
in the monastery or not, the gifts are to remain with the monastery in
accordance with their first determination; unless indeed there be ground for
complaint against the superior.

1374

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX

Whoever for money admits those coming to Holy Orders or to the
monastic life, if he be bishop, or superior of a monastery or any other in
sacred orders, shall either cease or be deposed. And the Superior of a
monastery of women shall be expelled [if she have done so and shall be
given over to subjection. The same shall be the ease with a superior of
monks, if he be not a priest. But the possessions brought by those who
come in, let them remain, whether the persons remain or not, provided the
superior be not to blame.

BALSAMON

But someone may ask how it is that canon V., orders that he that performs
an ordination for money is eo ipso to be deposed, whereas this canon
provides that he who receives a cleric or monk on account of a pecuniary
gift is to cease or else to be deposed. The answer is, that whenever anyone
performs an ordination for money, according to canon V., he is to be
deposed; but when it was only a reception of a person which took place,
whether into the list of the clergy or into a monastery by reason of money,
who did this is only to be deposed, if after being denounced he persists in
this evil. The canons therefore are diverse in their scope. The fifth treats of
unlawful ordination, but this one of improper receptions.

1375

CANON XX

That from henceforth, no double monastery shall be erected; and
concerning the double monasteries already in existence.

We decree that from henceforth, no double monastery shall be erected;
because this has become an offense and cause of complaint to many. In the
case of those persons who with the members of their family propose to
leave the world and follow the monastic life, let the men go into a
monastery for men, and the women into a monastery for women; for this
is well-pleasing to God. The double monasteries which are already in
existence, shall observe the rule of our holy Father Basil, and shall be
ordered by his precepts, monks and nuns shall not dwell together in the
same monastery, for in thus living together adultery finds its occasion. No
monk shall have access to a nunnery; nor shall a nun be permitted to enter
a monastery for the sake of conversing with anyone therein. No monk
shall sleep in a monastery for women, nor eat alone with a nun. When food
is brought by men to the canonesses, let the abbess accompanied by some
one of the aged nuns, receive it outside the gates of the women's
monastery. When a monk desires to see one of his kinswomen, who may
be in the nunnery, let him converse with her in the presence of the abbess,
and that in a very few words, and then let him speedily take his departure.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX

Monasteries shall not be double, neither shall monks and nuns live in the
same building, nor shall they talk together apart. Moreover if a man takes
anything to a canoness, let him wait without and hand it to her, and let him
see his relative in the presence of her superior.

1376

VAN ESPEN

It is evident, as Zonaras remarks, that the double monasteries here referred
to are not those in which men and women live together, in one house,
which in this canon is not tolerated at all, but those which were situated so
close together that it was evident there could easily be an entrance from
one to the other, these are allowed under certain cautions by this canon.

But not only the Greeks but the Latins also often disapproved of such
monasteries. See decree in Gratian, Pars. II., Causa XVIII. , Q. II., canon
xxviij., and Pope Paschal's letter (Epis. X) to Didacus, Abp. of
Compo Stella.

Despite all this St. Bridget of Sweden again instituted double monasteries
in the XVth century, concerning which Thomas Walsingham, a monk of St.
Alban's Abbey, in England, writes that in 1414, King Henry founded three
monasteries, of which the third was a Brigittine, professing the rule of St.
Augustine, with the additions called by them the Rule of the Savior.
"These two convents had one church in common, the nuns lived in the
upper part under the roof, the brothers on the ground-floor, and each
convent had a separate inclosure; and after profession no one went forth,
except by special license of the Lord Pope."

With regard to the chaplains of nuns, provision is found in Justinian's
Code. (Lib. xliv., De Epis. et clericis.)

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian' s Decretum,
Pars. II., Causa XVIIL, Q. II., canon xxj.

1377

CANON XXI

That monks are not to leave their monasteries and go into others.

A Monk or nun ought not to leave the monastery to which he or she is
attached, and betake themselves to others. But if one do this, he ought to
be received as a guest. It is not however proper that he be made a member
of the monastery, without the consent of his hegumenos.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI

It is not allowed to a monk or a nun to leave her own house and enter
another; but if he (or she) enters let (him or her) be received as a guest;
but let him (or her) not be admitted at all nor given hospitality contrary to
the will of the superior.

ARISTENUS,

The present canon does not allow a monk or a nun who goes to another
house to be received into, nor even to be admitted as a guest, lest by force
of necessity he be led astray to worldly things and so remain. Moreover it
does not permit a woman to be admitted and received and reckoned in the
number of the sisters without the consent of the superior.

It seems to me that in Aristenus an ouk must have crept into the text and
that the first sentence should read as now but omitting the "not." This
makes him agree with Zonaras who says "the man must be received as a
guest lest he go to a profane tavern and be forced to associate with those
who have never learned how to live decently." It is clear that the

1378

"superior" referred to is that of the house whence the monk or nun went
forth.

1379

CANON XXII

That when it happens that monies have to eat with women they ought to
observe giving of thanks, and abstemiousness, and discretion.

To surrender all things to God, and not to serve our own wills, is great
gain. For says the divine Apostle, "whether ye eat or drink, do all to the
glory of God." And Christ our God has bidden us in his Gospels, to cut
off the beginning of sins; for not only is adultery rebuked by him, but even
the movement of the mind towards the act of adultery when he says,
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart." We who have been thus taught
ought therefore to purify our minds. Now although all things are lawful, all
things are not expedient, as we have been taught by the mouth of the
Apostle. It is needful that all men should eat in order that they may live.
And for those to whom life consists of marrying, and bringing forth
children, and of the condition of the lay state, there is nothing unbecoming
in men and women eating together, only let them give thanks to the giver
of the food; but if there be the entertainments of the theater, that is,
Satanic songs accompanied with the meretricious inflections of harps,
there come upon them, through these things, the curse of the prophet, who
thus speaks: "Woe to them who drink wine with harp and psaltery, but
they regard not the works of the Lord, and consider not the works of his
hands." Whenever persons of this sort are found among Christians, let
them amend their ways; but if they will not do so, let there overtake them
the penalties which have been enacted in the canons by our predecessors.
With regard to those whose life is free from care and apart from men, that
is, those who have resolved before the Lord God to carry the solitary
yoke, they should sit down alone and in silence. Moreover it is also
altogether unlawful for those who have chosen the priestly life to eat in
private with women, unless it be with God-fearing and discreet men and
women, so that even their feast may be turned to spiritual edification. The
same rule is to be observed with relatives. Again, if it happen that a monk
or priest while on a journey does not have with him what is absolutely
necessary for him, and, because of his pressing needs, thinks well to turn

1380

aside into an inn or into someone's house, this he is permitted to do,
seeing that need compels.

NOTES

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII

There is no objection to laywomen eating with men: it is not right however
for men who have chosen the lonely life, to eat privately with women;
unless perchance together with them that fear God and with religious men
and women. But when traveling, a monk or anyone in sacred orders, not
carrying necessary provisions with him, may enter a public house.

Balsamon refers in connection with this canon to Apostolic Canons xlij.
and xliij.; 60:of the Synod of Carthage, and lxij. of the Synod in Trullo.

1381

THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD TO THE EMPEROR

AND EMPRESS

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 577.)

To our most religious and most serene princes, Constantine and Irene his
mother. Tarasius, the unworthy bishop of your God-protected royal city,
new Rome, and all the holy Council which met at the good pleasure of
God and upon the command of your Christ-loving majesty in the
renowned metropolis of Nice, the second council to assemble in this city.

Christ our God (who is the head of the Church) was glorified, most noble
princes, when your heart, which he holds in his hands, gave forth that
good word bidding us to assemble in his name, in order that we might
strengthen our hold on the sure, immovable, and God-given truth contained
in the Church's dogmas. As your heads were crowned with gold and most
brilliant stones, so likewise were your minds adorned with the precepts of
the Gospel and the teachings of the Fathers. And being the disciples and
companions, as it were, of those whose sounds went forth into all the
earth, ye became the leaders in the way of piety of all who bore the name
of Christ, setting forth clearly the word of truth, and giving a brilliant
example of orthodoxy and piety; so that ye were to the faithful as so
many burning lamps. The Church which was ready to fall, ye upheld with
your hands, strengthening it with sound doctrine, and bringing into the
unity of a right judgment those who were at variance. We may therefore
well say with boldness that it was through you that the good pleasure of
God brought about the triumph of godliness, and filled our mouth with joy
and our tongue with gladness. And these things our lips utter with a formal
decree. For what is more glorious than to maintain the Church's interests;
and what else is more calculated to provoke our gladness?

Certain men rose up, having the form of godliness, inasmuch as they were
clothed with the dignity of the priesthood, but denying the power thereof;
and thus deserving for themselves the charge of being but priests of
Babylon. Of such the word of prophecy had before declared that

1382

"lawlessness went forth from the priests of Babylon." Nay more, they
banded themselves together in a sanhedrim, like to that which Caiaphas
held, and became the propagators of ungodly doctrines. And having a
mouth full of cursing and bitterness, they thought to win the mastery by
means of abusive words. With a slanderous tongue and a pen of a like
character, and objecting to the very terms used by God himself, they
devised marvelous tales, and then proceeded to stigmatize as idolaters the
royal priesthood and the holy nation, even those who had put on Christ,
and by his grace had been kept safe from the folly of idols. And having a
mind set upon evil, they took in hand unlawful deeds, thinking to
suppress altogether the depicting of the venerable images. Accordingly, as
many icons as were set in mosaic work they dug out, and those which
were in painted waxwork, they scraped away; thus turning the comely
beauty of the sacred temples into complete disorder. Among doings of this
sort, it is to be specially noted that the pictures set up on tablets in
memory of Christ our God and of his Saints, they gave over to the flames.
Finally, in a word, having desecrated our churches, they reduced them to
utter confusion. Then some bishops became the leaders of this heresy and
where before was peace, they fomented strife among the people; and
instead of wheat sowed tares in the Church's fields. They mingled wine
with water, and gave the foul draught to those about them. Although but
Arabian wolves, they hid themselves under sheeps' clothing, and by
specious reasoning against the truth sought to commend their lie. But all
the while "they hatched asps' eggs and wove a spider's web," as says the
prophet; and "he that would eat of their eggs, having crushed one, found it
to be addled, with a basilisk within it," and giving forth a deadly stench.

In such a state of affairs, with a lie busy destroying the truth, ye, most
gracious and most noble princes, did not idly allow so grave a plague, and
such soul-destroying error long to continue in your day. But moved by the
divine Spirit which abideth in you, ye set yourselves with all your
strength utterly to exterminate it, and thus preserve the stability of the
Church's government, and likewise concord among your subjects; so that
your whole empire might be established in peace agreeably with the name
[Irene] you bear. Ye rightly reasoned, that it was not to be patiently
endured, that while in other matters we could be of one mind and live in
concord, yet in what ought to be the chief concern of our life, the peace of

1383

the Churches, there was amongst us strife and division. And that too,
when Christ being our head, we ought to be members one of another, and
one body, by our mutual agreement and faith. Accordingly, ye commanded
our holy and numerously-attended council to assemble in the metropolis
of Nice, in order that after having rid the Church of division, we might
restore to unity the separated members, and might be careful to rend and
utterly destroy the coarse cloak of false doctrine, which they had woven
of thorn fiber, and unfold again the fair robe of orthodoxy.

And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and
Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of
the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding
the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect
harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical
councils; and accordingly we have anathematized the madness of Arius,
the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Appolinarius,
the man- worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures
devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is
their companion. We have also anathematized the idle tales of Origen,
Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius,
Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematized their own
evil will. Finally, taught by the Spirit, from whom we have drawn pure
water, we have with one accord and one soul, altogether wiped out with
the sponge of the divine dogmas the newly devised heresy, well- worthy to
be classed with those just mentioned, which springing up after them,
uttered such empty nonsense about the sacred icons. And the contrivers of
this vain, but revolutionary babbling we have cast forth far from the
Church's precincts.

And as the hands and feet are moved in accordance with the directions of
the mind, so likewise, we, having received the grace and strength of the
Spirit, and having also the assistance and co-operation of your royal
authority, have with one voice declared as piety and proclaimed as truth:
that the sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained,
inasmuch as he was very man; also those which set forth what is
historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our
undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God; and likewise those of the Holy
Angels (for they have manifested themselves in human form to those who

1384

were counted worthy of the vision of them), or of any of the Saints. [We
have also decreed] that the brave deeds of the Saints be portrayed on
tablets and on the walls, and upon the sacred vessels and vestments, as
hath been the custom of the holy Catholic Church of God from ancient
times; which custom was regarded as having the force of law in the
teaching both of those holy leaders who lived in the first ages of the
Church, and also of their successors our reverend Fathers. [We have
likewise decreed] that these images are to be reverenced (rcpoaicuveiv)
that is, salutations are to be offered to them. The reason for using the word
is, that it has a two-fold signification. For icuveivin the old Greek tongue
signifies both "to salute" and "to kiss." And the preposition Ttpoqgives to
it the additional idea of strong desire towards the subject; as for example,
we havecpepco and rcpoacpepco, icupa) and npooKvp& and so also we
have Ki>p(5 and npooKvpco. Which last word implies salutation and strong
love; for that which one loves he also reverences (7tpoaicuv£i) and what
he reverences that he greatly loves, as the everyday custom, which we
observe towards those we love, bears witness, and in which both ideas are
practically illustrated when two friends meet together. The word is not
only made use of by us, but we also find it set down in the Divine
Scriptures by the ancients. For it is written in the histories of the Kings,
"And David rose up and fell upon his face and did reverence to
(7tpoaeKt)vr|ae) Jonathan three times and kissed him" (1 Kings 20:41).
And what is it that the Lord in the Gospel says concerning the Pharisees?
"They love the uppermost rooms at feasts and greetings (daTtaapcut;) in
the markets." It is evident that by "greetings" here, he means reverence
(7tpoaK\)UT|Giv) for the Pharisees being very high-minded and thinking
themselves to be righteous were eager to be reverenced by all, but not
[merely] to be kissed. For to receive salutations of this latter sort savored
too much of lowly humility, and this was not to the Pharisees' liking. We
have also the example of Paul the divine Apostle, as Luke in the Acts of
the Apostles relates: "When we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren
received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in with us unto James,
and all the presbyters were present. And when he had saluted
(6cG7toca&|j,evo<;) them, he declared particularly what things God had
wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry" (Acts 21:17, 18, 19). By the
salutation here mentioned, the Apostle evidently intended to render that
reverence of honor (TijxnriKriv TtpoaKuvnoiv) which we shew to one

1385

another, and of which he speaks when he says concerning Jacob, that "he
reverenced (TtpoaeKiSvriaev) the top of his staff (Hebrews 11:21). With
these examples agrees what Gregory surnamed Theologus says: "Honor
Bethlehem, and reverence (rcpoaicuvriaov) the manger."

Now who of those rightly and sincerely understanding the Divine
Scriptures, has ever supposed that these examples which we have cited
speak of the worship in spirit (xf|<; ev Ttveuporci XocTpeiocc;)? [Certainly
no one has ever thought so] except perhaps some persons utterly bereft of
sense and ignorant of all knowledge of the Scriptures and of the teaching of
the Fathers. Surely Jacob did not adore (e^dxpevaev) the top of his staff;
and surely Gregory Theologus does not bid us to adore (Xocxpeijeiv) the
manger? By no means. Again, when offering salutations to the life-giving
Cross, we together sing: "We reverence (rcpoaK'uvcou.ev), thy cross, O
Lord, and we also reverence (7tpooKt>vcopev) the spear which opened the
life-giving side of thy goodness." This is clearly but a salutation, and is so
called, and its character is evinced by our touching the things mentioned
with our lips. We grant that the word 7tpoaidjvr|ai<; is frequently found in
the Divine Scriptures and in the writings of our learned and holy Fathers
for the worship in spirit (kn\ xr\q ev n\ev\iaxi Xaxpe'ia<;) since, being a
word of many significations, it may be used to express that kind of
reverence which is service. As there is also the veneration of honor, love
and fear. In this sense it is, that we venerate your glorious and most noble
majesty. So also there is another veneration which comes of fear alone,
thus Jacob venerated Esau. Then there is the veneration of gratitude, as
Abraham reverenced the sons of Heth, for the field which he received from
them for a burying place for Sarah his wife. And finally, those looking to
obtain some gift, venerate those who are above them, as Jacob venerated
Pharaoh. Therefore because this term has these many significations, the
Divine Scriptures teaching us, "Thou shalt venerate the Lord thy God, and
him only shalt thou serve," says simply that veneration is to be given to
God, but does not add the word "only;" for veneration being a word of
wide meaning is an ambiguous term; but it goes on to say "thou shalt serve
(^ocTpeiSaeif;) him only," for to God alone do we render latria.

The things which we have decreed, being thus well supported, it is
confessedly and beyond all question acceptable and well-pleasing before
God, that the images of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, and those of the

1386

undefiled Mother of God, the ever- virgin Mary, and of the honorable
Angels and of all Saints, should be venerated and saluted. And if anyone
does not so believe, but undertakes to debate the matter further and is evil
affected with regard to the veneration due the sacred images, such an one
our holy ecumenical council (fortified by the inward working of the Spirit
of God, and by the traditions of the Fathers and of the Church)
anathematizes. Now anathema is nothing less than complete separation
from God. For if any are quarrelsome and will not obediently accept what
has now been decreed, they but kick against the pricks, and injure their
own souls in their fighting against Christ. And in taking pleasure at the
insults which are offered to the Church, they clearly shew themselves to
be of those who madly make war upon piety, and are therefore to be
regarded as in the same category with the heretics of old times, and their
companions and brethren in ungodliness.

We have sent our brethren and fellow priests, God-beloved Bishops,
together with certain of the Hegumenoi and clergy, that they may give a
full report of our proceedings to your godly-hearing ears. In proof and
confirmation of what we have decreed, and also for the assurance of your
most religious majesty, we have submitted proofs from the Fathers, a few
of the many we have gathered together in illustration of the brightly
shining truth.

And now may the Savior of us all, who reigns with you (cyupPocoi^eucov
"uu.1v) and who was pleased to vouchsafe his peace to the Churches
through you, preserve your kingdom for many years, and also your
council, princes, and faithful army, and the whole estate of the empire; and
may he also give you victory over all your enemies. For he it is, who says:
"As I live, saith the Lord, they that glorify me, I will glorify." He it is also
who hath girded you with strength, and will smite all your enemies, and
make your people to rejoice.

And do thou, O city, the new Sion, rejoice and be glad; thou that art the
wonder of the whole world. For although David hath not reigned in thee,
nevertheless thy pious princes here preside over thy affairs as David
would have done. The Lord is in the midst of thee; may his name be
blessed forever and even Amen.

1387

EXCURSUS ON THE TWO LETTERS OF GREGORY II. TO THE

EMPEROR LEO.

(J. B. Bury, Appendix 14 to Vol, V. of his edition of Gibbon's Rome.
1898.)

It is incorrect to say that "the two epistles of Gregory II. have been
preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council" [as Gibbon does]. In modern
collections of the Acts of Ecclesiastical Councils, they have been printed
at the end of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council. But they first came
to light at the end of the XVIth. century and were printed for the first time
in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, who had obtained them from
Fronton le Due. This scholar had copied the text from a Greek MS. at
Rheims. Since then other MSS. have been found, the earliest belonging to
the Xlth., if not the Xth century.

In another case we should say that the external evidence for the
genuineness of the epistles was good. We know on the authority of
Theophanes that Gregory wrote one or more letters to Leo (erciaxoXriv
SoypaxiKriv sub A. M. 6172, 6i knioToX&\, sub A. M. 6221); and we
should have no external reasons to suspect copies dating from about 300
years later. But the omission of these letters in the Acts of the Nicene
Council, though they are stated to have been read at the council, introduces
a shadow of suspicion. If they were preserved, how comes it that they
were not preserved in the Acts of the Council, like the letter of Gregory to
the Patriarch Germanus? There is no trace anywhere of the Latin originals.

Turning to the contents, we find enough to convert suspicion into a
practical certainty that the documents are forgeries. This is the opinion of
M. l'abbe Duchesne (the editor of the Liber Pontificalis), M. L. Guerard
(Melanges d'Archcaleologie et d'Histoire, p. 44 sqq., 1890); Mr. Hodgkin
(Italy and her Invaders, Vol. vi., p. 501 sqq.) A false date (the beginning of
Leo's reign is placed in the XlVth. instead of the XVth. indiction), and the
false implication that the Imperial territory of the "Ducatus Romae"
terminated at twenty-four stadia, or three miles, from Rome, point to an
author who was neither a contemporary of Leo nor a resident in Rome.

1388

But the insolent tone of the letters is enough to condemn them. Gregory II.
would never have addressed to his sovereign the crude abuse with which
these documents teem. Another objection (which I have never seen
noticed) is that in the First Letter the famous image of Christ which was
pulled down by Leo, is stated to have been in the "Chalkoprateia"
(bronze smith's quarter), whereas, according to the trustworthy sources, it
was above the Chalka gate of the Palace.

Rejecting the letters on these grounds — which are supported by a number
of smaller points — we get rid of the difficulty about a Lombard siege of
Ravenna before A. D. 727: a siege which is not mentioned elsewhere and
was doubtless created by the confused knowledge of the fabricator.

1389

EXCURSUS ON THE RECEPTION OF THE SEVENTH COUNCIL

The reception of the Seventh Council in the East was practically universal.
No historian pretends that the iconoclastic opinions had any hold over the
masses of the people. It was strictly speaking a court movement, backed
by the army, and whenever the images were laid low and their veneration
condemned it was by the power of the State, enforcing its will upon a
yielding and (as we would call them today) Erastian clergy. (Cf. Harnack,
History of Dogma, Eng. tr. Vol. iv., p. 326.)

The struggle indeed was not quite put an end to by the conciliar decree
After the death of the Empress in A. D. 803, several iconoclastic rulers sat
on the throne of the East, among them Michael the Stammerer, who (as
Michaud wittily says) "fought the images and married the nuns." He sent
a letter, which is still extant, to Louis le Debonnaire of France, setting
forth the superstitions of the orthodox, which is most curious and
interesting reading. (Vide Mansi.)

His successor was Theophilus, who reigned from 829 until 842, and was a
fanatical iconoclast. The Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem
wrote to him officially, several years after his accession, begging him not
to imitate the bad example of the iconoclasts. At that time the only
Patriarch who sided with the heretics was John the Grammarian, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, the very same who in 814 had repudiated the
iconoclast doctrine! With the death of this Emperor, the power of the
Iconoclasts likewise died; and at the accession of Michael III with his
mother Theodora and his sister Thee la came the final triumph of the
images. I shall quote here the words of Harnack: "Then came an Empress,
Theodora, who finally restored the worship. This took place at the Synod
held at Constantinople A. D. 842. This Synod decreed that a Feast of
Orthodoxy (f| icupiocKri xf|<; 6p9oSo^ioc<;). should be celebrated annually,
at which the victory over the iconoclasts should be regularly remembered.
Thus the whole of orthodoxy was united in image- worship. In this way
the Eastern Church reached the position which suited its nature. We have
here the conclusion of a development, consistent in the main points. The

1390

divine and sacred, as that had descended into the sensuous world by the
incarnation, had created for itself in the Church a system of material,
supernatural things, which offered themselves for man's use." (Hist.
Dogma. Vol. iv., p. 328.)

Much has been written, and truly written, of the superiority of the
iconoclastic rulers; but when all has been said that can be, the fact still
remains, that they were most of them but sorry Christians, and the justice
of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin's summing up of the matter will
not be disputed by any impartial student. He says, "No one will deny that
with rarest exceptions, all the religious earnestness, all which constituted
the quickening power of a church, was ranged upon the other [i.e. the
orthodox] side. Had the Iconoclasts triumphed, when their work showed
itself at last in its true colors, it would have proved to be the triumph, not
of faith in an invisible God, but of frivolous unbelief in an incarnate
Savior." (Trench. Medioeval History, chap, vii.)

We come now to consider what reception the Seventh of the General
Councils met with in the West. And first we find that it was accepted, so
far at least as its dogmatic decrees went, by the Pope, the whole Roman
Church and, so far as we know, by all the West except the realm of
Charlemagne and, as would naturally be expected, the English Church.

It is true that this was a large and very important exception; so large and
so important that it becomes necessary to examine in detail the causes
which led to this rejection.

Some persons have supposed that the English council held at Calcuth in
787 rejected the ecumenical character of II. Nice, because in two of its
canons (the let and the 4th) it only speaks of "the faith of the Six General
Councils." But it is evident that the reason for this was that it had not yet
heard of the Nicene synod; moreover such action would have been clearly
impossible, since the council was presided over by the Bishop of Ostia,
the legate of Pope Hadrian.

The first opposition to the council in the West was made apparently by
Charlemagne himself. Pope Hadrian sent him a translation of the acts into
Latin and signified his acceptance of the council. But this translation was
so badly done that not only was a large part of the acts utterly

1391

unintelligible, but also, in at least one place, a bishop of the council was
made to say that the sacred images were to be adored with the same
supreme worship as is paid to the Holy Trinity.

It may not be wholly charitable to suggest the possibility of such a thing
having any influence in the matter. On the other hand it would be unfair to
the reader not to state that Charlemagne had, or thought that he had,
serious grievances against the Empress Irene, and that he might not have
been sorry to have discovered some reason for which to reject her council.
It should, moreover, be remembered how much the Pope in his struggle for
independence of the Eastern Empire trusted to Charlemagne, and therefore
how reluctant he might readily have been to break with so important an
ally; and so might be induced to tolerate the rejection by the Frankish
Emperor of what had been received by him, the Vicar of Christ and the
successor of Peter, as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod of the Catholic
Church.

As a result of this feeling of Charlemagne's, there were written what we
call the "Caroline Books," and these exercised so mighty an influence on
this whole question, and so completely misled even the learned, that I shall
give a careful examination of their authorship, authority, and contents; for
there can be no doubt that it was the influence of these books (which
appeared in 790) that induced the unfortunate action of the Council of
Frankfort four years later (in 794); and that of the Convention of Paris in

1392

EXAMINATION OF THE CAROLINE BOOKS

I. Authorship of the Caroline Books.

I find that many writers on the subject of what they call "image worship,"
speak frequently of these "Caroline Books," and refer to them with great
admiration. It is also absolutely certain that many of these writers have
never read, possibly never seen, the books of which they write so
eloquently. I have used the reprint of Melchior Goldast's edition
(Frankfort, 1608) in Migne's Patrologia Latina, Tom. xcviij., in this article.

The work begins thus. "In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
beginneth the work of the most illustrious and glorious man Charles, by
the will of God, king of the Franks, Gauls, Germany, etc., against the
Synod which in Greek parts firmly and proudly decreed in favor of
adoring (adorandis) images," then follows immediately what is called
"Charlemagne's Preface."

Now of course nobody supposes for a moment that. Charlemagne wrote
these books himself. But Sir William Palmer (Treatise on the Church, 'Vol.
II., p. 204) says that the prelates of the realm of France "composed a
reply to this Synod," he further says that "This work was published by
the authority and in the name of the Emperor Charlemagne and with the
consent of his bishops, in 790" (p. 205). I am entirely at a loss to know on
what authority these statements rest. The authorship of the work has not
without great show of reason, been attributed to Alcuin. Besides the
English tradition that he had written such a book, there has been pointed
out the remarkable similarity of his commentary on St. John (4, 5, et
seqq.) to a passage in Liber IV., cap. vj., of these Caroline Books. (On this
point see Forster, General Preface to the Works of Alcuin n. 10) But after
all whether Alcuin was the author or no, matters little, the statement that
the "bishops of France" were in any sense responsible for it is entirely
gratuitous, unless indeed some should think it may be gathered from the
statement of the Preface;

1393

"We have undertaken this work with the priests who are prelates of the
Catholic flocks in the kingdom which has been granted to us of God." But
this would not be the only book written at the command of, and set forth
by, a secular prince and yet claiming the authority of the Church. I need
only give as examples "The Institution of a Christian Man" and the
Second Prayer Book of Edward the Vlth.

II. Authority of the Caroline Books.

But be their authorship what it may, we come next to consider their
authority; and here we are met with the greatest difficulty, for it is certain
that despite the statements to the contrary, these books were not those
sent to Pope Hadrian by Charlemagne, those of which the Pope deigned to
write a refutation. This Hefele has clearly proved, by pointing out that
those sent to the Pope treated the matter in an entirely different order; that
there were in those sent only 85 chapters, while these books have 120 (or
121 if the authenticity of the last chapter is granted). Moreover the
quotations made by Hadrian do not occur verbatim in the Caroline books,
but are in some eases enlarged, in others abbreviated. (Cf. Hefele' s
treatment of the whole subject in the original German.) Petavius thinks
that what Hadrian received were extracts from the Caroline Books, made
by the Council of Frankfort. Hefele arrives at a directly opposite
conclusion, viz., that the Caroline Books are an expansion of the Capitula
sent to the Pope, and that this expansion was made at the bidding of
Charlemagne.

It should be noted here that Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, and Surius all
question the authenticity of the Caroline Books altogether, (Vide Baron,
Annal., A.D., 794.) But this extreme position seems to be refuted by the
fact that certain quotations made by Hincmar are found in the books as we
have them. (Cf. Sirmond in Mansi, Tom. XIII. , 905, Labbe, Tom. VII., col.
1054.)

III. Contents of the Caroline Books.

If the authorship and authority of these books are difficult subjects, the
contents of the books are still more extraordinary, for it seems to be
certain, past all possibility of doubt, that the authors of these books had

1394

never read the acts nor decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, of which
they were writing; and further that he or they were also completely
ignorant of what took place at the Conciliabulum of 754.

One example will be sufficient to prove this point. In Book IV., Chapter
XIV., and also in chapter XX., (Migne's ed., col. 1213 and col. 1226), the
charge is made that the Seventh Council, especially Gregory, the bishop of
Neocsesarea, unduly flattered the Empress. Now as a matter of fact the
remarks referred to were made at the Conciliabulum of 754, and not at the
Second Council of Nice; they were not made by Gregory of Neocaesarea at
all, and the reason they are attributed to him is because he read them in the
proceedings of that pseudo-council to the true council of 787.

Other examples could easily be given, but this is sufficient. Ab uno disce
omnes. The most famous however of all the ignorant blunders found in
these books must not here be omitted. It occurs in Book III., chapter xvij.,
and is no less serious than to attribute to Constantius, the bishop of
Cyprus, the monstrous statement that the sacred images were to be given
the supreme adoration due to the Holy Trinity. What a complete mistake
this was, we have already pointed out, and will have been evident to
anyone who has read the extracts of the acts given in the foregoing pages. I
have said "mistake;" and I have said so deliberately, because I am
convinced that the Caroline books, the decree of Frankfort, and the
decision of the Convention of Paris, all sprung from ignorance and
blundering; and largely through the force of this particular false statement
on which I am writing. But I must not omit the statement of Sir William
Palmer, a champion of these books, that "the acts of the synod of Nice
having been sent to Rome in the year 787, Pope Hadrian himself, according
to Hincmar, transmitted them into France to Charlemagne, to be confirmed
by the bishops of his kingdom; and the Emperor [i.e. Charlemagne] also
received the acts directly from Constantinople according to Roger
Hovedon. These prelates, thus furnished with an authentic copy and not a
mere translation, composed a reply to the synod" (Treatise on the Church,
Vol. II., p. 203).

If Sir William is right, then the author of the Caroline books is thrown into
a dark shade indeed, for either he was too ignorant or too careless to read
the original Greek, or else, knowing the real state of the case, deliberately

1395

misrepresented the synod. Sir William feels this difficulty, and, a few lines
below the sentence I have quoted, attributes the misstatements to a
"mistranslation," viz. the false statement — upon which alone all the rest
hung -attributed to the bishop of Cyprus. But the two claims are contraria
inter se. If they were using an authentic copy of the original sent from
Constantinople then they could not have been misled by a
"mistranslation;" if they used a mistranslation and took no pains to read
the decrees, their opinion and their writings — as well as the decrees
which followed from them — were evidently entirely without theological
value, and this is the estimation in which they have been held by all
unprejudiced scholars without exception, whether agreeing with their
conclusions or no.

It will be well to set plainly before the reader the foundation upon which
rests the dogmatic teaching of the Caroline Books. This is, in short, the
authority of the Roman See. That there may be no possible doubt upon
this point, I proceed to quote somewhat at length chapter vi., of Book I.;
the heading of which reads as follows: "That the Holy Roman Catholic
and Apostolic Church is placed above all other Churches, and is to be
consulted at every turn when any controversy arises with regard to the
faith."

"Before entering upon a discussion of the witnesses which the Easterns
have absurdly brought forward in their Synod, we think well to set. forth
how greatly the holy Roman Church has been exalted by the Lord above
the other Churches, and how she is to be consulted by the faithful: and
this is especially the case since only such books as she receives as
canonical and only such Fathers as she has recognized by Gelasius and the
other Pontiffs, his successors, are to he accepted and followed; nor are
they to be interpreted by the private will of anyone, but wisely and
soberly.... For as the Apostolic Sees in general are to be preferred to all the
other dioceses of the world, much more is that see to be preferred which is
placed over all the other apostolic sees. For just as the Apostles were
exalted above the other disciples, and Peter was exalted above the other
Apostles, so the apostolic sees are exalted above the other sees, and the
Roman See is eminent over the other apostolic sees. And this exaltation
arises from no synodical action of the other Churches, but she holds the

1396

primacy (primatum) by the authority of the Lord himself, when he said,
'Thou art Peter, etc'

"This church, therefore, fortified with the spiritual arms of the holy faith,
and satiated with the health-giving fountains which flow from the well of
light, and from the source of goodness, resists the horrible and atrocious
monsters of heresies, and ministers the honey-sweet cups of teaching to
the Catholic Churches of the whole world.... Whence [i.e. from St. Jerome
consulting the Pope] we can understand how Saints and learned men who
were shining lights in different parts of the world, not only did not depart
in faith from the holy Roman Church, but also asked aid of her in time of
necessity for the strengthening of the faith. And this all Catholic Churches
should regularly observe, so that they may seek help froth her, after
Christ, for protecting the faith: which (quoe) having neither spot nor
wrinkle, smites the portentous heads of heresies, and strengthens the
minds of the faithful in the faith. And although many have separated front
this holy and venerable communion, nevertheless never have the Churches
of our part done so, but instructed by that apostolical erudition, and by
his assistance from whom cometh every good and perfect gift, have always
received the venerable charismata....; and are careful to follow the see of
blessed Peter in all things, as they desire thither to arrive where he sits as
keeper of the keys. To which blessedness may he who deigned to found
his Church upon Peter bring us, and make us to persevere in the unity of
the holy Church; and may we merit a place in that kingdom of heaven
through the intervention of him whose See we follow and to whom have
been given the keys."

Such is the doctrinal foundation of the Caroline books, viz.: the absolute
authority of the Roman See in matters pertaining to the faith of the
Church. It is certainly very difficult to understand how the author of these
books could have known that the doctrinal decree of the Synod of Nice
had received the approbation of this supreme power which it was so
necessary to consult and defer to; and that the Synod which he denounces
and rejects had been received by that chief of all the Apostolic Sees as the
Seventh of the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church. Whether the
author [or authors] had ever seen the Pope's letter or no, one thing is
certain, he never read with any care even the imperfect translation with
which he had been furnished, and of that translation Anastasius

1397

Bibliothetius says: "The translator both misunderstood the genius of the
Greek language as well as that of the Latin, and has merely translated word
for word; and in such a fashion that it is scarcely ever possible to know
(aut vix aut nunquam) what it means; moreover nobody ever reads this
translation and no copies of it are made."

This being the case, when we come to examine the Caroline Books, we are
not astonished to find them full of false statements.

In the Preface we are told that the Conciliabulum was "held in Bithynia;"
of course as a matter of fact it met in Constantinople.

In Bk. I., chapter j., we find certain words said to occur in the letters of the
Empress and her son. On this Hefele remarks: "One cannot find the words
in either of the two letters of these sovereigns, which are preserved in the
acts of the Council of Nice, it is the synod that uses them."

In the Second Book, chapter xxvij., the council is charged with saying
"Just as the Lord's body and blood pass over from fruits of the earth to a
notable mystery, so also the images, made by the skill of the artificers,
pass over to the veneration of those persons whose images they bear."
Now this was never said nor taught by the Nicene Synod, but something
like it was taught by the Constantinopolitan conciliabulum of 754; but the
very words cited occur neither in the one set of acts nor in the other! The
underlying thought however was, as we have said, clearly exposed by the
iconoclastic synod of 754 and as clearly refuted by the orthodox synod of
787.

In Book III., chapter V., we are told that "Tarasius said in his confession
of faith that the Holy Spirit was the companion (contribulum in the
Caroline Books) of the Father and of the Son." It was not Tarasius who
said so at all, but Theodore of Jerusalem, and in using the word b\ib(pvXoq
he was but copying Sophronius of Jerusalem.

Chapter 17. begins thus: "How rashly and (so to speak) like a fool,
Constantine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, spoke when he said, with
the approval of the rest of the bishops, that he would receive and
honorably embrace the images; and babbled that the service of adoration
which is due to the consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, should be given
images, we need not here discuss, since to all who either read or hear this it

1398

will be clear that he was swamped in no small error, to wit to confess that
he exhibited to creatures the service due to the Creator alone, and through
his desire to favor the pictures overturned all the Holy Scriptures. For
what sane man ever either said or thought of saying such an absurdity, as
that different pictures should be held in the same honor as the holy,
victorious Trinity, the creator of all things, etc." But as will be seen by a
glance at the acts this is exactly the opposite of what Constantine did say.
Now if, as Sir William Palmer asserts, the author had before him the
genuine acts in the original, I do not see how his honesty Call be defended,
or if his honesty is kept intact, it must be at the expense of his learning or
carefulness. Bower felt this so keenly that he thinks the Caroline Books
attribute the words to Constantine the bishop alone and not to the council.
But the subterfuge is vain, for, as we have just seen, the author affirms
that Constantine' s speech received "the assent of the rest of the bishops
(coeteris consentientibus)," and further not obscurely suggests that
Constantine had the courage to say what the others were content to think,
but did not dare to say

In Book IV., the third chapter distinctly states that while lights and
incense were used by them in their churches, yet that neither the one nor
the other was placed before images. If this can be relied upon it would
seem to fix the Frankish custom of that date.

Chapters XIV. and XX. are distinguished by the most glaring blunders, for
they attribute to the Council of Nice the teachings of the Conciliabulum,
and in particular they lay them to the door of Gregory of Neocaesarea
because he it was who read them

Finally, in chapter the twenty-eighth, the ecumenical character of II. Nice
is denied, on the ground that it has not preserved the faith of the Fathers,
and that it was not universal in its constitution. I beg the reader, who has
fresh in his memory the Papal claims set forth in a previous chapter, to
consider whether it is possible that the author of that chapter should have
seen and known of the Papal acceptance of the Seventh Synod and yet
have written as follows: "Among all the inanities said and done by this
synod, this does not seem by any means to be the least, that they styled it
ecumenical, for it neither held the purity of the ecumenical faith, nor did it
obtain authority through the ecumenical action of the Churches. ... If this

1399

synod had kept clear of novelties and had rested satisfied with the
teachings of the ancient Fathers, it might have been styled ecumenical. But
since it was not contented with the teachings of the ancient Fathers it
cannot be styled ecumenical," etc., etc.

Such are in brief the contents and spirit of the Caroline Books. Binius
indeed says that he found a twenty-ninth chapter in a French MS. of
Hadrian's Epistle. It is lacking in the ordinary codices. Petavius thinks it
was added by the Council of Frankfort. It is found in Migne (col. 1218)
and the main point is that St. Gregory's advice is to be followed, viz.: "We
permit images of the Saints to be made by whoever is so disposed, as well
in churches as out of them, for the love of God and of his Saints; but never
compel anyone who does not wish to do so to bow to them (adorare eas);
nor do we permit anyone to destroy them, even if he should so desire." I
cannot but think that this would be a very lame conclusion to all the
denunciation of the preceding chapters.

IV. The Chief Cause of Trouble a Logomachy.

Now from all this one thing is abundantly clear, that the great point set
forth with such learning and perspicuity by the Seventh Synod, to wit, the
distinction between XocTpeioc and 7tpo<;Kt>v£ai<; was wholly lost upon
these Frankish writers; and that their translation of both words by "adoro"
gave rise to nine-tenths of the trouble that followed. The student of
ecclesiastical history will remember how a similar logomachy followed
nearly every one of the Ecumenical Synods, and will not therefore be
astonished to find it likewise here. The "homousion," the "theotocos," the
"two natures," "the two wills," each one gave rise to heated discussion in
different sections of the Church, even after it had been accepted and
approved by a Synod which no one now for an instant disputes to have
been ecumenical.

Moreover, that after this serious error and bungling on the part of the
Caroline divines and of the French and Allemanic Churches, the Pope did
not proceed to enforce the accept-ante of the council will not cause
astonishment to any who are familiar with what St. Athanasius said with
regard to the Semi-Arians, who even after I. Nice refused to use the word

1400

"homousios;" or with the extreme gentleness and moderation of St. Cyril
of Alexandria in his treatment of John of Antioch.

Perhaps before leaving the subject I should give here the chief strictures
which Hefele makes upon these books (400).

(1.) The Caroline Books condemn passages which they quote (without
saying so) from Pope Hadrian's own letter to the Empress. They blame
St. Basil for teaching that the reverence done to the image passes on to the
prototype.

(3.) They treat St. Gregory Nyssen with contempt, and refuse to listen to
him (Lib. II., c. xvij.).

(4.) They are full of most careless and inexcusable blunders.

(a) They attribute to the Emperors a phrase which belongs to the Synod
(Lj.).

(b) They confound Leontius with John (I. xxj.).

(c) They confound Tarasius with Theodore of Jerusalem (III. v.).

(d) They impute to the Council the opinions of the Iconoclastic
Conciliabulum (IV., 14:and xx.).

(e) They attribute to Epiphanius the deacon the propositions of others
when he merely read (IV., xv.)

It had usually been supposed that these Four Books were the "quaedam
capitula" which Charlemagne had sent by Angelbert to Pope Hadrian "to
be corrected by his judgment (ut ilius judicio corrigerentur). Considering
the nature of the contents of the Caroline Books as we now have them,
such would seem a priori highly improbable, but this matter has been
practically settled, as we have already pointed out, by Bishop Hefele, who
has shown from Pope Hadrian's answer "correcting" those "capitula," that
they must have been entirely different in order though no doubt their
contents were similar. The differing views of Petavius and Walch will be
found in full in Hefele (401).

In concluding his masterly treatment of this whole matter, Hefele makes
(402) a remark well worthy of repetition in this place:

1401

"The great friendship which Charles shewed to Pope Hadrian down to the
hour of his death proves that their way of thinking with regard to the
cultus of images was not so opposite as many suppose, and — above all
— as many have tried to make out."

I shall close this matter with the admirably learned and judicious words of
Michaud.

"No doubt there had been abuses in connection with the worship of
images; but the Council of Nice never approved of these. No doubt, too,
certain marks of veneration used in the East were not practiced in Gaul;
but the Council of Nice did not go into these particulars. It merely
determined the principle, to wit, the lawfulness and moral necessity of
honoring the holy images; and in doing this it did not in any degree
innovate. Charlemagne ought to have known this, for, already in the sixth
century Fortunatus, in his Poem on St. Martin, tells how in Gaul they
lighted lamps before the images. The great point that Charlemagne made
was that what was called in the West 'adoration,' in the strict sense (that
is to say the worship of Latria) should be rendered to none other than
God; now this is exactly the doctrine of the Council of Nice. Charlemagne
himself admits that the learned may venerate images, meaning thereby that
the veneration is really addressed to the prototypes, but that such
veneration is a source of scandal to the ignorant who in the image venerate
nothing but the material image itself (Lib. III., cap. xvj.)."

1402

EXCURSUS ON THE COUNCIL OF FRANKFORT, A. D, 794

It has been commonly represented that the Council of Frankfort, which
was a large Synod of the West, with legates of the Pope present and
composed of the bishops of Gaul, Germany, and Aquitaine, devoted its
attention to a consideration of the question of the veneration due to images
and of the claims of the Second Council of Nice to being an Ecumenical
Synod. I do not know upon what grounds such statements have rested,
but certainly not upon anything revealed by any remains of the council we
possess, for among these we find but one brief paragraph upon the
subject, to wit, the Second Canon, which reads as follows (Labbe and
Cossart, Concilia, Tom. vii, col. 1057):

"II. The question was brought forward concerning the recent synod which
the Greeks had held at Constantinople concerning the adoration of images,
that all should be judged as worthy of anathema who did not pay to the
images of the Saints service and adoration as to the Divine Trinity. Our
most holy fathers rejected with scorn and in every way such adoration and
service, and unanimously condemned it."

Now in the first place I call the reader' s attention to the fact that the
Conciliabulum of 754 was held at Constantinople but that the Seventh
Council was held at Nice. It would seem as if the two had got, mixed in the
mind of the writer.

In the second place neither of these synods, nor any other synod, decreed
that the "service" (XocTpeioc) and "adoration" (7tpoaicuvr|Gic;) due to the
holy Trinity was under pain of anathema to be given to "the images of the
Saints."

On this second canon Hefele writes as follows:

(Hefele. Condi., 398).

The second of these canons deserves our full attention; in it, as we have
seen, the Synod of Frankfort expresses its feeling against the Second
Ecumenical Council of Nice, and against the veneration of images; Eginhard

1403

also gives us the information that it took this action, viz.: "for it was
decided by all [i.e. at Frankfort] that the synod, which a few years before
was gathered together in Constantinople (sic) under Irene and her son
Constantine, and is called by them not only the Seventh but also
Ecumenical, should neither be held nor declared to be the Seventh nor
ecumenical but wholly without authority."

Hefele rejects the views of Baronius, Bellarmine, Surius, and Binius. I have
no intention of defending the position of any one of these writers but I
translate Binius' s note, merely remarking that it is easier to reject his
conclusion than to answer the arguments upon which it rests.

(Severinus Binius, Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 1070.)

Baronius was of opinion that the Second Council of Nice was condemned
by this council; and before him Bellarmine had taught the same thing. But
two things make me dissent from their conclusion:

First. That as the history and acts of this council inform us that the legates
of Pope Hadrian (whom Ado in his chronology names Theophylact and
Stephen) were present at this council, it was not possible that the whole
council was ignorant by what authority the true Seventh Council was
assembled at Nice, and what its decrees had been. For as this Synod at
Nice was assembled under the same Pontiff, the legates of that same
Pontiff could not have been ignorant of its authority and teaching.
Therefore even if false rumors concerning the Seventh Synod had been
scattered about, as Genebrardus affirms (on what foundation I know not),
the Fathers of the Council of Frankfort could have been instructed by the
papal legates, and been given information and taught what were the
writings of that Seventh Council. Moreover since the celebration of that
Nicene Council was an event most celebrated and most widely published
throughout the whole Church, it is not credible that among the bishops of
all France and Germany, assembled in this place, no single one was found
who had accurate information concerning the manner in which the Council
of Nice was assembled, or of how it had received the approval of the
Supreme Pontiff. For as a matter of fact, that error of adoring images as
gods is rather an error of the Gentiles than of any heretics or of any who
profess the faith of Christ. Therefore in no way is it credible that the
fathers of the Council of Frankfort should have thought this, or rashly on

1404

account of certain rumors have believed this; especially since at that time
in no Church was there the suspicion of any such error; and the bishops of
the council were too pious and Catholic to allow the suspicion that out of
base enmity to the Orientals they were led to attribute error to the fathers
of the most sacred Council of Nice, or that they would have attached an
heretical sense to their decision.

Another reason is this; that the fathers of this council often made
profession of acting under the obedience of the Roman Pontiffs; and in the
book Sacrosyllabus at the end, when they gave sentence against the
heretics, they subjoin these words: "The privilege of our Lord and father
the Supreme Pontiff, Hadrian I. Pope of the most blessed See, being in all
respects maintained." And this same principle the same fathers often
professed in this council, that they followed the tradition of their
predecessors, and did not depart from their footsteps; and that
Charlemagne, who was present, at this council, in his letter to the Spanish
bishops, said that in the first place he had consulted the pontiff of the
Apostolic See, what be thought concerning the matter treated of in that
council: and that a little further on lie adds these words: "I am united to
the Apostolic see. and to the ancient Catholic traditions which have come
down from the beginnings of the new-born Church, with my whole mind,
and with complete alacrity of heart."

Now the fathers of this council could not make such a profession if they
had condemned the Sacrosant Synod of Nice, which had been confirmed
by the Apostolic See. For as I have shown above they could not have been
misled by false information upon this point. If therefore knowingly and
through heretical pravity they did these things, so too they did them out
of pertinacity and heresy; and so concerning the authority of the
Apostolic See one way they had thought and another way spoken. But in
my judgment such things are not to be imputed to so great and to such an
assembly of bishops, for it is not likely that the fathers of this council, in
the presence of the legates of the Supreme Pontiff and of a Catholic Prince,
would have condemned the Seventh Synod, confirmed as it was by the
authority of the Pontiff and have referred the matter to Hadrian the
Supreme Pontiff.

1405

Moreover it would have surely come to pass that if the Nicene Council
had been condemned by the authority of this synod, and so the error of
the Iconoclasts had been approved through erroneous information, before
our days some follower of that error would have tried to back up himself
and his opinion by its authority: but no one did this, and this is all the
more noteworthy since, only shortly after the time of Charlemagne,
Claudius of Turin sprang up in that very Gaul, and wished to introduce
that error into the Western Church, and he could have confirmed his
teaching in the highest manner if he could have shewn that that plenary
council of the West had confirmed his error. But as a matter of fact
Claudius did not quote it in his favor; nor did Jonas of Orleans, who wrote
against him at that time, and overthrew his foundations, make any mention
in this respect of the Council of Frankfort in his response.

Lastly I add that the Roman Church never gave its approbation and
received any provincial synod, so far as one part of its action was
concerned while in another part it was persistently heretical. But this
provincial council so far as it defined concerning the servitude and filiation
of Christ was received and approved by the Church, it is not then credible
that in the same council the Nicene Synod would have been condemned. I
need only add that every proposed theory is so full of difficulties as to
seem to involve more absurdities and improbabilities than it explains. The
reader is referred especially to Vasquez (De adorat. imag., Lib. II., Dispt.
VII., cap. vij.) and to Suarez (Tom. I, Disp. LIV., Sec. iij.), for learned and
instructive discussions of the whole matter.

1406

EXCURSUS ON THE CONVENTION SAID TO HAVE BEEN HELD

IN PARIS,

A.D. 825.

It is curious that besides the Caroline Books and the second canon of
Frankfort, another matter of great difficulty springs up with regard to the
subject of the authority of the Seventh Synod. In 1596 there appeared
what claims to be an ancient account of a convention of bishops in Paris in
the year 824. The point in which this interests us is that the bishops at
this meeting are supposed to have condemned the Seventh Council, and to
have approved the Caroline books. The whole story was rejected by
Cardinal Bellarmine and he promptly wrote a refutation. Sismondi
accepted this view of the matter, and Labbe has excluded the pretended
proceedings from his "Concilia" altogether.

But while scholars are agreed that the assigned date is impossible and that
it must be 825, they have usually accepted the facts as true, I need not
mention others than such widely differing authors as Fleury (Hist. Eccles.,
Lib, xlvij. iv.), Roisselet de Sauclieres (Hist. Chronol., Tome III., No. 792,
p. 385), and Hefele (Concilien, 425).

It would be the height of presumption were I to express any opinion upon
this most disputed point, the reader will find the whole matter at length in
Walch (Bd. XL, S. 135, 139). I only here note that if the account be
genuine, then it is an established fact that as late as 825, an assembly of
bishops rejected an Ecumenical Council accepted by the pope, and further
charged the Supreme Pontiff with having "commanded men to adore
superstitiously images {quod superstitiose eas adorarejussit)" and asked
the reigning Pontiff to correct the errors of his predecessors, and all this
without any reproof from the Holy See!

Hefele points out also that they not only entirely misrepresent the
teaching of Hadrian and the Seventh Council, but that they also cite a
passage from St. Augustine, "which teaches exactly the opposite of that

1407

which this synod would make out, for the passage says that the word
colere can be applied to men."

HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE SO-CALLED "EIGHTH GENERAL
COUNCIL" AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCILS.

Whatever may be the final verdict of history with regard to the Caroline
books, to the action of this Synod of Frankfort, and to the genuineness of
the account of the Convention of Paris, there can be no doubt with regard
to the position held by the Seventh of the Ecumenical Synods in all
subsequent conciliar action.

In 869 was held at Constantinople what both the Easterns and Westerns
then considered to be the Eighth of the Ecumenical Synods. Its chief
concern was to restore peace and it thought to accomplish this by taking
the strongest position against Photius. At this Synod the Second Council
of Nice was accepted in the most explicit manner, not only its teaching but
also its rank and number. But not many years afterwards Photius again got
the upper hand and another synod was held, also at Constantinople, in
A.D. 879, which restored Photius and which was afterwards accepted by
many Easterns as the Eighth of the Ecumenical Synods. But at this synod,
as well as in that of 869, the position of Second Nice was fully
acknowledged. So that after that date, roughly speaking one century after
the meeting of the Seventh Synod, despite all opposition it was
universally recognized and revered, even by those who were so rapidly
drifting further and further apart as were the East and West in the time of
Photius and his successors.

At the Council of Lyons in A. D. 1274 there was consent on all hands that
all were united in accepting the Seven Synods as a basis of union.

And finally when the acts and agreements of the Council of Florence
(1438) appeared in the first edition issued under papal authority, that
synod was styled the "Eighth," and in this there was no accident, for
during the debate the Cardinal Julian Caesarini had asked the Greeks for
the proceedings of the Eighth Synod and Mark answered: "We cannot be

1408

forced to count that synod as ecumenical, since we do not at all recognize
it but in fact reject it.... " A few years afterwards was held a second synod
which restored Photius and annulled the acts of the preceding assembly,
and this synod also bears the title of the Eighth Ecumenical. But Cardinal
Julian did not enter on any defense of the Ecumenical character of this
so-called "Eighth Synod."

For the purposes of this discussion, the matter is perfectly clear, and even
if some later writers speak still of the "Six Ecumenical Councils" in doing
so they are rejecting the Eighth as much as the Seventh; in fact they are
rejecting neither, But speaking as did St. Gregory, who still mentioned the
Four General Councils and compared them to the Four Gospels, although
the fifth had been already held. Those few Frankish writers who continued
to speak of II. Nice as a pseudo council did so out of ignorance or else in
contrariety to the teaching of the Roman Church to whose obedience they
professed subjection. It is no place of mine to offer moral reflections upon
their doings.

1409

APPENDIX CONTAINING CANONS AND RULINGS HOT

HAVING CONCILIAR ORIGIN BUT APPROVED BY NAME IN

CANON II. OF THE SYNOD IN TRULLO.

Elenchus.

Prefatory note.

Introduction to the Apostolical Canons. The 85 Apostolical

Canons.

Epitome of the Canons of the following:

I. Dionysius of Alexandria.

II. Peter of Alexandria.
HI. Gregory Thaumaturgus.

IV. Athanasius of Alexandria

V. Basil of Coesarea.

VI. Gregory Nyssen.

VII. Gregory Theologus.

VIII. Amphilochius of Iconium.

IX. Timothy of Alexandria.

X. Theophilus of Alexandria.
XL Cyril of Alexandria.

XII. Gennadius of Constantinople.

PREFATORY NOTE.

As this volume only professes to contain the conciliar decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils, it would seem that canons and rulings which were of
private or quasi-private origin should have no place in it; and yet a very
considerable number of such determinations are expressly approved by
name in the Canons of the Synod in Trullo, which canons were received, to
some extent at least (as we have seen), by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Under these circumstances I have felt that the reader might justly expect to

1410

find some mention made of these decrees, which while indeed non-conciliar
in origin, yet had received such high conciliar sanction, I have therefore
placed a translation of the text of the "Apostolical Canons" with a brief
introduction, and have reprinted Johnson's epitome of the other decrees
and canons, supplying a few omissions and adding a few notes, chiefly
taken from the Greek scholiasts, Zonaras and Balsamon. It is hoped that
thus the present volume has been made practically complete, and that
from it, any student can obtain a satisfactory knowledge of all the
doctrinal definitions and of all the disciplinary enactments of the undivided
Church.

1411

THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS

INTRODUCTION.

To affirm that the "Apostolical Canons" were a collection of canons made
by the Apostles would be about as sensible as to affirm that the
"Psalterium Davidicum" was a collection of his own psalms made by
David, or that the "Proverbs of Solomon" was a collection of proverbs
made by Solomon.

Many of the Psalms had David for their composer; many of the Proverbs
had Solomon for their originator; but neither the book we call "The
Psalter" nor the book we call "The Proverbs" had David or Solomon for its
compiler, the matter contained in the one is largely, many think chiefly, of
Davidic origin, the matter contained in the oilier is no doubt Solomonic;
and just so "The Apostolical Canons" may well be to a great extent of
Apostolic origin, committed to writing, some possibly by the Apostles
themselves, others by their immediate successors, who heard them at their
mouth; and these at so the period not far removed from the date of the
Nicene Council (A. D. 325), probably earlier than the Council of Antioch,
were gathered together into a code which has since then been somewhat
enlarged and modified. This is the view of the matter to which the general
drift of the learned seems to be moving, and it is substantially the view so
ably defended by Bishop Beveridge in his Synodicon, and in his
remarkably learned and convincing answer to his French opponent,
entitled Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Primitivoe vindicatus ac illustratus.
(This last volume, together with the "Preface to the Notes on the
Apostolical Canons" has been reprinted in Vol. XII. of Bishop Beveridge' s
Works in the "Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.")

In thus accepting in the main the old conclusions I am far from intending to
imply that more recent research has not shewn some of the details of the

1412

bishop's view to be erroneous. In brief, the proposition which seems to be
most tenable is that in the main the Apostolic Canons represent the very
early canon-law of the Church, that the canons which make up the
collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the
year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the
collection, as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning
it a date not later than the middle of the fourth century. With regard to the
name "Apostolic Canons" there need be no more hesitation in applying it
to these canons than in calling Ignatius an "Apostolic Father," the
adjective necessarily meaning nothing more than that the canons set forth
the disciplinary principles which were given to the early Church by the
Apostles, just as we speak of the "Apostles' Creed."

While this is true there can be no question that in the East the Apostolic
Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by
the Holy Apostles. I proceed now to quote Bishop Hefele, but I have
already (Cf. Council in Trullo) expressed my own opinion that there is not
contained in the Quinisext decree any absolute definition of what is
technically known as the "authenticity" of the Canons of the Apostles.

(Hefele. Hist, of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 451 et seqq.).

The Synod in Trullo being, as is well known, regarded as ecumenical by
the Greek Church, the authenticity of the eighty-five canons was decided
in the East for all future time. It was otherwise in the West. At the same
period that Dionysius Exiguus translated the collection question for
Bishop Stephen, Pope Gelasius promulgated his celebrated decree de libris
non recipiendis. Drey mentions it, but in a way which requires correction.
Following in this the usual opinion, he says that the Synod at Rome in
which Gelasius published this decree was held in 494; but we shall see
hereafter that this synod was held in 496. Also Drey considers himself
obliged to adopt another erroneous opinion, according to which Gelasius
declared in the same decree the Apostolic Canons to be apocryphal. This
opinion is to be maintained only so long as the usual text of this decree is
consulted, since the original text as it is given in the ancient manuscripts
does not contain the passage which mentions the Apostolic Canons. This
passage was certainly added subsequently, with many others, probably by
Pope Hormisdas (51 1-543) when he made a new edition of the decree of

1413

Gelasius. As Dionysius Exiguus published his collection in all probability
subsequently to the publication of the decree of Gelasius, properly so
called, in 496, we can understand why this decree did not mention the
Apostolical Canons. Dionysius did not go to Rome while Gelasius was
living, and did not know him personally, as he himself says plainly in the
Proefatio of his collection of the papal decrees. It is hence also plain how
it was that in another collection of canons subsequently made by
Dionysius, of which the preface still remains to us, he does not insert the
Apostolic Canons, but has simply this remark: Quos non admisit
uniniversalitas, ego quoque in hoc opere proetermisi. Dionysius Exiguus
in fact compiled this new collection at a time when Pope Hormisdas had
already explicitly declared the Apostolic Canons to be apocryphal.

Notwithstanding this, these canons, and particularly the fifty mentioned
by Dionysius, did not entirely fall into discredit in the West; but rather
they came to be received, because the first collection of Dionysius was
considered of great authority. They also passed into other collections, and
particularly into that of the pseudo-Isidore; and in 1054, Humbert, legate
of Pope Leo IX., made the following declaration: dementis libel, id est
itinerarium Petri Apostoli et Canones Apostolorum numerantur inter
apocrypha, ExcetisCapitulis Quisquaginta, quoe decreverunt regulis
orthodoxis adjungenda. Gratian also, in his decree, borrowed from the
fifty Apostolic Canons, and they gradually obtained the force of laws. But
many writers, especially Hinemar of Rheims, like Dionysius Exiguus,
raised doubts upon the apostolical origin of these canons. From the
sixteenth century the opinion has been universal that these documents are
not authentic; with the exception, however, of the French Jesuit Turrianus,
who endeavored to defend their genuineness, as well as the authenticity of
the pseudo-Isidorian decrees. According to the Centuriators of Magdeburg,
it was especially Gabriel d' Aubespine, Bishop of Orleans, the celebrated
Archbishop Peter de Marca, and the Anglican Beveridge, wire proved that
they were not really compiled by the Apostles, but were made partly in
the second and chiefly in the third century. Beveridge considered this
collection to be a repertory of ancient canons given by synods in the
second and third centuries. In opposition to them, the Calvinist Dullaeus
(Daille) regarded it as the work of a forger who lived in the fifth and sixth

1414

centuries; but Beveridge refuted him so convincingly, that from that time
his opinion, with some few modifications, has been that of all the learned.

Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the very earliest
times must have had a collection of canons; and he demonstrates that from
the commencement of the fourth century, bishops, synods, and other
authorities often quote, as documents in common use, a kocvcov
ocTtoGToXiKot;, or £kkXt|giocgi;ik6<; or 6cp%aioc;; as was done, for
instance, at the Council of Nice, by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and
by the Emperor Constantine, etc. According to Beveridge, these
quotations make allusion to the Apostolic Canons, and prove that they
were already in use before the fourth century.

In opposition to Beveridge Dr. von Drey wrote with profound learning;
and Bickell, in his work just quoted, to a great degree accepts his
conclusions as being well-founded. These conclusions in short are that the
so-called "Apostolic Canons" are a patchwork taken from the "Apostolic
Constitutions," which are said to have been of Eastern origin and to date
from the latter part of the third century, and from the canons of various
synods, notably Nice, Antioch, and Chalcedon.

But this last reference to Chalcedon is too much for Bickell to stomach;
and for many reasons he makes the date of the collection earlier.

Hefele points out a rather significant document which he says both "Drey
and Bickell have overlooked. In 1738 Scipio Maffei published three
ancient documents, the first of which was a Latin translation of a letter
written on the subject of Meletius by the Egyptian bishops Hesychius,
Phileas, etc. This letter was written during the persecution of Diocletian,
that is, between 303 and 305: it is addressed to Meletius himself, and
especially accuses him of having ordained priests in other dioceses. This
conduct, they tell him, is contrary to all ecclesiastical rule (aliena a more
divino et regula ecclesiastica), and Meletius himself knows very well that
it is a lexpatrum et propatrum... in alienis paroeciis non licere alicui
episcoporum ordinationes celebrare. Maffei himself supposes that the
Egyptian bishops were here referring to the thirty-fifth canon (the
thirty-sixth according to the enumeration of Dionysius), and this opinion
can hardly be controverted." After Bickell and Drey about ten years
passed and then Bunsen and Ultzen wrote on the subject. Of these Bunsen

1415

renewed Beveridge's arguments, and considers the "Apostolic Canons" as
a reflex of the customs of the Primitive Church, if not in the Johannean
age, at latest in that which immediately succeeded; and he is of opinion
that the legend attributing them to the Apostles is earlier in date than the
Council of Nice. Ultzen does not express himself definitely on the point,
but in a note to p. xvj. of the Preface to his book regrets that Bunsen
should have renewed Beveridge's argument with regard to the relative age
of the Apostolic Canons and those of Antioch because in his judgment "all
the more recent judges of this matter had refuted it."

I think I should here interrupt my narrative to warn the reader that
Beveridge has been often misunderstood and misrepresented. For example
he expressly says that according to his theory "these canons were set
forth by various synods, so too they seem to us to have been collected by
different persons, of whom some collected more, some fewer.... And these
canons, thus collected, some called ecclesiastical and some called them
Apostolical; not that they believed them to have been written by the very
Apostles, for they had made the collection themselves, but because they
were consonant to the doctrine and traditions of the Apostles, and they
were persuaded that they had been originally established at least by
apostolic men." This is Beveridge's position in his own words.

I come now to the most recent writings upon the subject. Harnack has
developed a theory which is partly his own with regard to the Apostolical
Constitutions, in his edition of the "Didache," and has also considered the
question of the Apostolic Canons. The fullest discussion however of the
matter is in a work entitled, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionem, Eine
Litteran-historische Untersuchung, von Franz Zaver Funk. Rottenburg am
Neckar. 1891.

Funk gives the history of the controversy, and refuses to allow that
Hefele's citation of the Letter of the Egyptian bishops throws any light
upon the point. In most matters he agrees with Bickell, and declares (p.
188) that "the Synod of Antioch is certainly to be regarded as the source
of the Apostolic Canons," and that thus by comparing the canons, it is
manifest that the Apostolic "are certainly to be regarded as the dependent
writing" (p. 185). And after considering their relation to the Apostolical
Constitutions, Funk states his conclusion as follows (p. 190): "The

1416

drawing up of the canons falls therefore not earlier than the interpolation
of the Didaskalia and the preparation of the two last books of the
Constitution, hence not before the beginning of the fifth century. On the
other hand there is no ground for fixing the writing at a later period, not a
single canon bears the mark of a later time."

Such was the state of things until Mar. Rihmani, the Syrian Archbishop of
Aleppo, gave notice that he had found in a codex at Mossul a Syrian
version of the Apocryphal book known as the Testamentum Jesu Christi.
It is stated that in the discoverer's opinion the Testamentum is earlier in
date than the Apostolic Canons, than the Canons of Hippolytus, and than
the VHIth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions; and further that it was the
direct source of the Apostolic Canons. As I know nothing further of this
matter, I must simply note it for the guidance of the reader in his further
study of the subject.

Having now traced the history of the discussion, I need only add that Mr.
Turner has just issued a very critical text of the version of Dionysius
Exiguus, the full title of which is as follows:

Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monvmenta Jvris Antiqvissima Canonvm et
Conciliorvm Graecorum, Interpretationes Latinae. Edidit Cvthbertvs
Hamilton Turner, A.M. Fascicvli Primiei Pars Prior Canones Apostolorvm
Nicaenorvm Patrvm Svbscriptiones. And that I have taken, except where
noted to the contrary, Hammond's translation.

1417

THE CANONS OF THE HOLY AND ALTOGETHER
AUGUST APOSTLES.

CANON I.

Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.

CANON II

Let a presbyter, deacon, and the rest of the clergy, be ordained by one
bishop,

CANON IH. (III. and IV.)

If any bishop or presbyter offer any other things at the altar, besides that
which the Lord ordained for the sacrifice, as honey, or milk, or
strong-made drink instead of wine, or birds, or any living things, or
vegetables, besides that which is ordained, let him be deposed. Excepting
only new ears of corn, and grapes at the suitable season. Neither is it
allowed to bring anything else to the altar at the time of the holy oblation,
excepting oil for the lamps, and incense.

1418

CANON IV. (V.)

Let all other fruits be sent home as first-fruits for the bishops and
presbyters, but not offered at the altar. But the bishops and presbyters
should of course give a share of these things to the deacons, and the rest of
the clergy.

CANON V. (VI.)

Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretense
of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he
persists, let him be deposed.

CANON VI. (VII.)

Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, undertake worldly business;
otherwise let him be deposed.

CANON VII. (VHI.)

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter
before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.

1419

CANON VIII (IX.)

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one on the sacerdotal list,
when the offering is made, does not partake of it, let him declare the cause;
and if it be a reasonable one, let him be excused; but if he does not declare
it, let him be excommunicated, as being a cause of offense to the people,
and occasioning a suspicion against the offerer, as if he had not made the
offering properly.

CANON IX. (X.)

All the faithful who come in and hear the Scriptures, but do not stay for
the prayers and the Holy Communion, are to be excommunicated, as
causing disorder in the Church.

CANON X. (XI.)

If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated
person, let him also be excommunicated.

CANON XI. (XII.)

If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if he
were a clergyman, let him also be deposed.

1420

CANON XII. and XIII (XIII.)

If any one of the clergy or laity who is excommunicated, or not to be
received, shall go away, and be received in another city without
commendatory letters, let both the receiver and the received be
excommunicated.

But if he be excommunicated already, let the time of his excommunication
be lengthened.

CANON XIV

A bishop is not to be allowed to leave his own parish, and pass over into
another, although he may be pressed by many to do so, unless there be
some proper cause constraining him. as if he can confer some greater
benefit upon the persons of that place in the word of godliness. And this
must be done not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many
bishops, and at their earnest exhortation.

CANON XV

If any presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the list of the clergy, shall
leave his own parish, and go into another, and having entirely forsaken his
own, shall make his abode in the other parish without the permission of
his own bishop, we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service;
more especially if his own bishop having exhorted him to return he has
refused to do so, and persists in his disorderly conduct. But let him
communicate there as a layman.

1421

CANON XVI

If, however, the bishop, with whom any such persons are staying, shall
disregard the command that they are to cease from performing divine
offices, and shall receive them as clergymen, let him be excommunicated, as
a teacher of disorder.

CANON XVII

He who has been twice married after baptism, or who has had a concubine,
cannot become a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the
sacerdotal list.

CANON xvin

He who married a widow, or a divorced woman, or an harlot, or a
servant-maid, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or
any other of the sacerdotal list.

CANON XIX

He who has married two sisters, or a niece, cannot become a clergyman.

1422

CANON XX

If a clergyman becomes surety for any one, let him be deposed.

CANON XXI

An eunuch, if he has been made so by the violence of men or [if his virilia
have been amputated ] in times of persecution, or if he has been born so, if
in other respects he is worthy, may be made a bishop.

CANON XXII

He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergyman, for he is a
self-murderer, and an enemy to the workmanship of God.

CANON XXIII

If any man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let him be deposed,
for he is a self-murderer.

1423

CANON XXIV

If a layman mutilate himself, let him be excommunicated for three years, as
practicing against his own life.

CANON XXV. (XXV. and XXVI.)

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or
theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be excommunicated; for the
Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice for the same offense."

In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the same proceeding)

CANON XXVI. (XXVH.)

Of those who have been admitted to the clergy unmarried, we ordain, that
the readers and singers only may, if they will, marry.

canon xxvn. (xxvni.)

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall strike any of the faithful who have
sinned, or of the unbelievers who have done wrong, with the intention of
frightening them, we command that he be deposed. For our Lord has by no
means taught us to do so, but, on the contrary, when he was smitten he
smote not again, when he was reviled he reviled not again, when he
suffered he threatened not.

1424

canon xxvm. (xxrx.)

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed upon
open accusations, shall dare to meddle with any of the divine offices which
had been intrusted to him, let him be altogether cut off from the Church.

CANON XXIX. (XXX.)

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall obtain possession of that dignity
by money, let both him and the person who ordained him be deposed, and
also altogether cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus was by me
Peter.

CANON XXX. (XXXI.)

If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal
powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who
communicate with him.

CANON XXXI. (XXXH.)

If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, shall collect a separate
congregation, and erect another altar, not having any grounds for
condemning the bishop with regard to religion or justice, let him be

1425

deposed for his ambition; for he is a tyrant; in like manner also the rest of
the clergy, and as many as join him; and let laymen be excommunicated.
Let this, however, be done after a first, second, and third admonition from
the bishop.

canon xxxn. (xxxm.)

If any presbyter or deacon has been excommunicated by a bishop, he may
not be received into communion again by any other than by him who
excommunicated him, unless it happen that the bishop who
excommunicated him be dead.

CANON XXXm. (XXXIV.)

No foreign bishop, presbyter, or deacon, may be received without
commendatory letters; and when they are produced let the persons be
examined; and if they be preachers of godliness, let them be received.
Otherwise, although you supply them with what they need, you must not
receive them into communion, for many things are done surreptitiously.

CANON XXXIV. (XXXV.)

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among
them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence
without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his
own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him
(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will

1426

be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy
Spirit.

CANON XXXV. (XXXVI.)

Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places
not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent
of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him
be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained.

CANON XXXVI. (XXXVH.)

If any person, having been ordained bishop, does not undertake the
ministry, and the care of the people committed to him, let him be
excommunicated until he does undertake it. In like manner a presbyter or
deacon. But if he has gone and has not been received, not of his own will
but from the perverseness of the people, let him continue bishop; and let
the clergy of the city be excommunicated, because they have not corrected
the disobedient people.

canon xxxvn. (xxxvm.)

Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year, and let them examine
amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion and settle the
ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting to be
held in the fourth week of Pentecost [i.e., the fourth week after Easter],
and the other on the 12th day of the month Hyperberetaeus [i.e.,
October].

1427

canon xxxvm. (XXXLX.)

Let the bishop have the care of all the goods of the Church, and let him
administer them as under the inspection of God. But he must not alienate
any of them or give the things which belong to God to his own relations. If
they be poor let him relieve them as poor; but let him not, under that
pretense, sell the goods of the Church.

CANON XXXLX. (XL.)

Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the
bishop; for he it is who is intrusted with the people of the Lord, and of
whom will be required the account of their souls.

CANON XL. (XL. continued.)

Let the private goods of the bishop, if he have any such, and those of the
Lord, be clearly distinguished, that the bishop may have the power of
leaving his own goods, when he dies, to whom he will, and how he will,
and that the bishop's own property may not be lost under pretense of its
being the property of the Church: for it may be that he has a wife, or
children, or relations, or servants; and it is just before God and man, that
neither should the Church suffer any loss through ignorance of the
bishop's own property, nor the bishop or his relations be injured under
pretext of the Church: nor that those who belong to him should be
involved in contests, and cast reproaches upon his death.

1428

CANON XLL

We ordain that the bishop have authority over the goods of the Church:
for if he is to be intrusted with the precious souls of men, much more are
temporal possessions to be intrusted to him. He is therefore to administer
them all of his own authority, and sup ply those who need, through the
presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God, and with all reverence. He may
also, if need be, take what is required for his own necessary wants, and for
the brethren to whom he has to show hospitality, so that he may not be in
any want. For the law of God has ordained, that they who wait at the altar
should be nourished of the altar. Neither does any soldier bear arms against
an enemy at his own cost.

CANON XLII

If a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, is addicted to dice or drinking, let him
either give it over, or be deposed.

CANON XLHI

If a subdeacon, reader, or singer, commits the same things, let him either
give over, or be excommunicated. So also laymen.

1429

CANON XLIV

Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who takes usury from those who
borrow of him, give up doing so, or be deposed.

CANON XLV

Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be
excommunicated: but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical
office, let him be deposed.

CANON XL VI

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or
sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial,
or what part hath a believer with an infidel?

CANON XLVII

Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly
received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by
the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and
not making a distinction between the true priests and the false.

1430

CANON XLVIH

If any layman put away his wife and marry another, or one who has been
divorced by another man, let him be excommunicated.

CANON XLIX

If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the ordinance of the Lord, does not
baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three
Unoriginated Beings, or three Sons, or three Comforters, let him be
deposed.

CANON L

If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three
immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the
Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, Baptize into my death,
but, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

CANON LI

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list,
abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint,
but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and
that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation,

1431

let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like
manner a layman.

CANON LII

If any bishop or presbyter, does not receive him who turns away from his
sin, but rejects him, let him be deposed; for he grieveth Christ who said,
"There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth."

CANON LIII

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, does not on festival days partake of
flesh and wine, from an abhorrence of them, and not out of religious
restraint, let him be deposed, as being seared in his own conscience, and
being the cause of offense to many.

CANON LIV

If any of the clergy be found eating in a tavern, let him be excommunicated,
unless he has been constrained by necessity, on a journey, to lodge in an
inn.

1432

CANON LV

If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed: for "thou shalt
not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

CANON LVI

If any of the clergy insult a presbyter, or deacon, let him be
excommunicated.

CANON LVII

If any of the clergy mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind, or him who is
infirm in his legs, let him be excommunicated. In like manner any of the
laity.

CANON LVIH

If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not
instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated, and if
he persists in his negligence and idleness, let him be deposed.

1433

CANON LIX

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, when any of the clergy is in want,
does not supply him with what he needs, let him be excommunicated; but
if he persists, let him be deposed, as one who has killed his brother.

CANON LX

If any one reads publicly in the church the falsely inscribed books of
impious men, as if they were holy Scripture, to the destruction of the
people and clergy, let him be deposed.

CANON LXI

If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or adultery,
or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be promoted to
the clergy.

CANON LXII

If any of the clergy, through fear of men, whether Jew, heathen, or heretic,
shall deny the name of Christ, let him be cast out. If he deny the name of a
clergyman, let him be deposed. If he repent, let him be received as a
layman.

1434

CANON LXHL

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal order,
shall eat flesh, with the blood of the life thereof, or anything killed by
beasts, or that dies of itself, let him be deposed. For the law has forbidden
this. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

CANON LXIV

If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or
heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be
excommunicated.

CANON LXV

If any clergyman shall strike anyone in a contest, and kill him with one
blow, let him be deposed for his violence. If a layman do so, let him be
excommunicated.

CANON LXVI

If any of the clergy be found fasting on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath,
excepting the one only, let him be deposed. If a layman, let him be
excommunicated.

1435

CANON LXVII

If anyone shall force and keep a virgin not espoused, let him be
excommunicated. And he may not take any other, but must retain her
whom he has chosen, though she be a poor person.

CANON LXVm

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall receive from anyone a second
ordination, let both the ordained and the ordainer be deposed; unless
indeed it be proved that he had his ordination from heretics; for those who
have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot be either of the
faithful or of the clergy.

CANON LXIX

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the
holy Quadragesimal fast of Easter, or the fourth day, or the day of
Preparation, let him be deposed, unless he be hindered by some bodily
infirmity. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

CANON LXX

If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the list of clergy, keeps
fast or festival with the Jews, or receives from them any of the gifts of

1436

their feasts, as unleavened bread, any such things, let him be deposed. If he
be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

CANON LXXI

If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue
of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated.

CANON LXXII

If any clergyman or layman takes away wax or oil from the holy Church,
let him be excommunicated, [and let him restore a fifth part more than he
took.]

CANON LXXIII

Let no one convert to his own use any vessel of gold or silver, or any veil
which has been sanctified, for it is contrary to law; and if anyone be
detected doing so, let him be excommunicated.

CANON LXXIV.

If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he
must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is
convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when

1437

he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time,
two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not
attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to
him.] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let
the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he
may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.

CANON LXXV

An heretic is not to be received as witness against a bishop, neither only
one believer; for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall
be established."

CANON LXXVI

A bishop must not out of favor to a brother or a son, or any other relation,
ordain whom he will to the episcopal dignity; for it is not right to make
heirs of the bishopric, giving the things of God to human affections.
Neither is it fitting to subject the Church of God to heirs. But if anyone
shall do so let the ordination be void, and the ordainer himself be punished
with excommunication.

CANON LXXVII

If any one be deprived of an eye, or lame of a leg, but in other respects be
worthy of a bishopric, he may be ordained, for the defect of the body does
not defile a man, but the pollution of the soul.

1438

CANON LXXVIH

But if a man be deaf or blind, he may not be made a bishop, not indeed as
if he were thus defiled, but that the affairs of the Church may not be
hindered.

CANON LXXLX

If anyone has a devil, let him not be made a clergyman, neither let him
pray with the faithful; but if he be freed, let him be received into
communion, and if he is worthy he may be ordained.

CANON LXXX

It is not allowed that a man who has come over from an heathen life, and
been baptized or who has been converted from an evil course of living,
should be immediately made a bishop, for it is not right that he who has
not been tried himself should be a teacher of others. Unless indeed this be
done upon a special manifestation of Divine grace in his favor.

CANON LXXXI

We have said that a bishop or presbyter must not give himself to the
management of public affairs, but devote himself to ecclesiastical business.

1439

Let him then be persuaded to do so, or let him be deposed, for no man can
serve two masters, according to the Lord's declaration.

CANON LXXXII

We do not allow any servants to be promoted to the clergy without the
consent of their masters, [to the troubling of their houses.] But if any
servant should appear worthy of receiving an order, as our Onesimus
appeared, and his masters agree and liberate him, and send him out of their
house, he may be ordained.

CANON LXXXIH

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall serve in the army, and wish to
retain both the Roman magistracy and the priestly office, let him be
deposed; for the things of Caesar belong to Caesar, and those of God to
God.

CANON LXXXIV

Whosoever shall insult the King, or a ruler, contrary to what is right, let
him suffer punishment. If he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a
layman, excommunicated.

1440

CANON LXXXV

Let the following books be counted venerable and sacred by all of you,
both clergy and Laity. Of the Old Testament, five books of Moses,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the Son of
Nun, one; of the Judges, one; of Ruth, one; of the Kings, four; of the
Chronicles of the book of the days, two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one;
[some texts read "of Judith, one";] of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of
the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three, viz.: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the
Song of Songs; of the Prophets, twelve; of Isaiah, one; of Jeremiah, one; of
Ezekiel, one; of Daniel, one. But besides these you are recommended to
teach your young persons the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. Our
own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles
of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of
Clemens, and the Constitutions of me Clemens, addressed to you Bishops,
in eight books, Which are not to be published to all on account of the
mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles.

1441

THE LETTER OF THE BLESSED DIONYSIUS, THE

ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA TO BASILIDES THE BISHOP,

WHO MADE ENQUIRIES ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS, TO WHICH

DIONYSIUS MADE ANSWER IN THIS EPISTLE, WHICH

ANSWERS HAVE BEEN RECErVED AS CANONS.

Dionysius to my beloved son, and brother, and fellow minister in holy
things, Basilides faithful to God, salutation in the Lord.

NOTE

Dionysius, Johnson says, wrote in about A.D. 247.

CANON I.

When the Paschal fast is to be broken depends on the precise hour of our
Savior's resurrection, and this was not certainly to be known from the
Four Evangelists; therefore they who have not fasted the Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday before Easter, do no great thing if
they fast the Friday and Saturday, and so till past three on Easter morning.
But they who have fasted the whole six days, are not to be blamed if they
break their fast after midnight. Some do not fast any of these days.

CANON II

Menstruous women ought not to come to the Holy Table, or touch the
Holy of Holies, nor to churches, but pray elsewhere.

1442

NOTE.

Balsamon notes how the canon educes the example of the woman who had
had an issue of blood for twelve years and who therefore did not dare to
touch the Lord, but only the "hem of his garment." He also notes that the
question proposed, was whether Christian women should be excluded
from the church and need follow the example of the Hebrews, who "when
the menstrual flux was upon them, sat in a solitary place by themselves
and waited for seven days to pass, and their flux should be over." The
answer given is as above.

CANON III

They that can contain and are aged ought to judge for themselves. They
have heard St. Paul say; that they should "for a time give themselves to
prayer, and then come together again."

NOTE.

In this epitome Johnson has set forth the meaning of the canon, as
understood by the Greek scholiasts, rather than translated and epitomized
the canon itself.

CANON IV

They who have had involuntary nocturnal pollutions be at their own
discretion [whether to communicate or not] .

1443

NOTE.

The Saint ends this canon with these words: "I have given opinion on the
points about which you have consulted me, not as a doctor, but in all
simplicity as it is suitable the relation between us should be. And when
you have examined, my most leaned son, what I have written you will let
me know what seems to you better or whether you agree with my
opinions. Farewell, dear son, may your ministry be in the peace of the
Lord." II.

1444

THE CANONS OF THE BLESSED PETER, ARCHBISHOP OF

ALEXANDRIA, AND MARTYR, WHICH ARE FOUND IN HIS

SERMON ON PENITENCE.

CANON I

The fourth Easter from the beginning of the persecution was now come;
and orders, that they who did not fall till after they had endured severe
torments, and have already been "Mourners" three years, after forty days'
fast, are to be admitted to communion, although they have not been before
received [to penance].

CANON II

But if they endured imprisonment only, without torments, let a year be
added to their former penance.

CANON III

If they fell voluntarily, without torments or imprisonments, but are come
to repentance, four years are added to their former penance.

1445

CANON IV

The case of them who do not repent pronounced desperate.

CANON V.

They that used evasion, and did not right down subscribe the abnegation,
or with their own hands incense the idols, but sent a heathen to do it for
them, are enjoined six months' penance, though they have been pardoned
by some of the Confessors.

CANON VI

Slaves forced by their masters to incense idols, and doing it in their
master's stead, are enjoined a year's penance.

CANON VII

The masters who forced them to it, are enjoined three years' penance, as
being hypocrites, and as forcing their slaves to sacrifice.

1446

CANON vm

They who first fell, and afterwards recovered themselves, by professing
themselves Christians, and endured torments, are forthwith admitted to
communion.

CANON IX

That they who provoked the magistrates to persecute themselves and
others are to be blamed, yet not to be denied communion.

CANON X.

That clergymen, who run themselves into persecution, and fell, though
they did afterward recover themselves, and suffer torments, yet are not to
be admitted to perform the sacred offices.

CANON XL

That they who prayed for them who fell after long torments, be connived
at, and we pray together with them, since they lament for what they have
done, with anguish and mortification.

1447

CANON XII

That they who with money purchased their ease and freedom, are to be
commended.

CANON xm

Nor should we accuse those who ran away, and left all, though others left
behind might fare the worse for it.

CANON xrv

That they who endured tortures, and afterwards, when they were deprived
of speech and motion, had their hands forced into the fire, to offer unholy
sacrifice, be placed in the Liturgy [i.e., in the diptychs] among the
Confessors.

CANON XV

Wednesday is to be fasted, because then the Jews conspired to betray
Jesus; Friday, because he then suffered for us. We keep the Lord's Day as
a day of joy, because then our Lord rose. Our tradition is, not to kneel on
that day. III.

1448

THE CANONICAL EPISTLE OF ST. GREGORY, ARCHBISHOP

OF NEOCAESAREA, WHO IS CALLED THAUMATURGUS,

CONCERNING THEM THAT, DURING THE INCURSION OF THE

BARBARIANS, ATE OF THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS AND

COMMITTED CERTAIN OTHER SINS.

CANON I

That they who have been taken captives by the barbarians, and have eaten
with them, be not treated as persons that have eaten things offered to
idols; especially because it is universally reported, that they do not
sacrifice to idols; nor shall those women who have been ravished by them,
be treated as guilty of fornication, unless they were before of lewd lives.

CANON II

That those Christians who plundered their brethren during the invasion, be
excommunicated, lest wrath come on the people, and especially on the
presidents, who enquire not into these matters.

CANONS III., IV., V.

The pretense of having found those goods, or that they themselves lost
things of equal value, shall stand them in no stead, but that they be
excluded from prayer.

1449

CANON VI

Against those who detain them prisoners who had escaped from the
barbarians, the holy man expects that such should be thunder-struck, and
therefore desires that some enquiry be made upon the spot by persons
sent for this purpose.

CANON VII

That they who joined the barbarians in their murder and ravages, or were
guides or informers to them, be not permitted to be hearers, till holy men
assembled together do agree in common upon what shall seem good, first
to the Holy Ghost, then to themselves.

CANON vm

But if they discover themselves, and make restitution, they shall be
admitted to be Prostrators.

CANON IX

They that are convicted to have found (though in their own houses)
anything [of their neighbors'] left by the barbarians shall also be
Prostrators; but if they shall confess themselves they shall communicate in
prayer.

1450

CANON X

This last privilege is restrained to such as demand nothing as a reward for
their discovery, and salvage, or under any pretense whatsoever.

CANON XI

The station of Mourners is without the gate of the oratory; the station of
the Hearers is within the oratory, in the porch with the catechumens; the
station of Prostrators is within the door of the temple; the station of
Co- slanders is among the communicants; the last is the participation of
Holy Mysteries.

1451

IV.
THE EPISTLE OF ST. ATHANASIUS TO THE MONK AMMUS.

(IIocvtoc (J.EV KOC^OC, k.tX.)

(This, as Epistle XL VIII, will be found translated in Vol. IV. of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers (2d Series) p. 556 et seq.)

Involuntary nocturnal pollutions are not sinful, [I add to Johnson the exact
words of the Saint. "For what sin or uncleanness can any natural
excrement have in itself? Think of the absurdity of making a sin of the wax
which comes from the ears or of the spittle from the mouth. Moreover we
might add many things and explain how the excretions from the belly are
necessary to animal life. But if we believe that man is the work of God's
hand, as we are taught in holy Scripture, how can it be supposed
necessary that we perform anything impure? And if we are the children of
God, as the holy Acts of the Apostles teaches, we have in us nothing
unclean, etc., etc."]; nor is matrimony unclean, though virginity ["which is
angelic and than which nothing can be more excellent"] is to be preferred
before it.

THE EPISTLE OF THE SAME ATHANASIUS TAKEN FROM THE
XXXIX. FESTAL EPISTLE.

(Found translated in Vol. IV, of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2d
series), pp. 551 and 552.)

[Johnson 's epitome is so unsatisfactory that I hate been compelled to
relegate it to a footnote and to make one in its room of my own.]

As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife
even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought
good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through

1452

tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For
there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges,
and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles,
counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and
Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To
these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then
Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations,
Ezekiel, and Daniel.

Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list
ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of
salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is
in them. In them alone (ev toijtok; povoi<^) is set forth the doctrine of
piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.

I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited
in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have
just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The
Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the
Doctrine (Ai8oc%r|) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the
Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you.

THE EPISTLE OF ST ATHANASIUS TO RUFFINIAN.

El) jxev toc in© k.t.X.

(Found translated as Epistle LV. in Vol. IV. of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers (2d Series) pp. 566 and 567.)

It has been determined by synods in Greece, Spain, France, that they who
have fallen, or been leaders of impiety [Arianism], be pardoned upon
repentance, but that they have not the place of the clergy; but that they
who were only drawn away by force, or that complied for fear the people
should be corrupted, have the place of the clergy too. Let the people who
have been deceived, or forced, be pardoned, upon repentance and

1453

pronouncing anathema against the miscreancy of Eudoxius and Euzoius,
ringleaders of the Arians (who assert that Christ is a creature); and upon
professing the faith of the Fathers at Nice, and that no synod can prejudice
that.

1454

V.

THE FIRST CANONICAL EPISTLE OF OUR HOLY FATHER

BASIL, ARCHBISHOP OF CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA TO

AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF ICONIUM.

(This Epistle, number ct xxxviij., is found translated in Volume VIII. of the
Second Series of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 223 et seqq.)

CANON I

As to the question concerning the Puritans the custom of every country is
to be observed, since they who have discussed this point are of various
sentiments. The [baptism] of the Pepuzenes I make no account of, and I
wonder that Dionysius the canonist was of another mind. The ancients
speak of heresies, which entirely break men off, and make them aliens
from the faith. Such are the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and
Pepuzenes, who sin against the Holy Ghost, who baptize into the Father,
Son and Montanus, or Priscilla. Schisms are caused by ecclesiastical
disputes, and for causes that are not incurable, and for differences
concerning penance. The Puritans are such schismatics. The ancients, viz.
Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and
Hydroparastatae, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation; because
they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have
broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the
spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore
they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the
Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by
laymen. Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their
baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered
their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the

1455

Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the
administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment
to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism.
We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to
observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we
received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a
canon to receive those in communion with them.

CANON II

Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the
embryo were perfectly formed, or not.

CANON III

A deacon guilty of fornication, is deposed, not excommunicated; for the
ancient canon forbids a single crime to be twice punished. And further, a
layman excommunicated may be restored to the degree from which he falls,
but a clergyman deposed cannot. Yet it is better to cure men of their sins
by mortification, and to execute the canon only in cases where we cannot
reach what is more perfect.

CANON IV

They that marry a second time, used to be under penance a year or two.
They that marry a third time, three or four years. But we have a custom,
that he who marries a third time be under penance five years, not by
canon, but tradition. Half of this time they are to be hearers, afterwards

1456

Co-standers; but to abstain from the communion of the Good Thing, when
they have shewed some fruit of repentance.

CANON V

Heretics, upon their death-bed, giving good signs of their conversion, to be
received.

CANON VI

Let it not be counted a marriage, when one belonging to the canon commits
fornication, but let them be forced to part."

CANON VII

They who have committed sodomy with men or brutes, murderers,
wizards, adulterers, and idolaters, have been thought worthy of the same
punishment; therefore observe the same method with these which you do
with others. We ought not to make any doubt of receiving those who have
repented thirty years for the uncleanness which they committed through
ignorance; for their ignorance pleads their pardon, and their willingness in
confessing it; therefore command them to be forthwith received, especially
if they have tears to prevail on your tenderness, and have [since their
lapse] led such a life as to deserve your compassion.

1457

CANON vm

He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills
her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and
undesignedly kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in
order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only
designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a
philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take
medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway,
and rapparees.

CANON IX

Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbidding divorce, save in case
of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though
they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take
another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be
positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of
adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts
an innocent wife is not allowed to marry.

CANON X

That they who swear that they will not be ordained, be not forced to break
their oath. Severus, Bishop of Masada, who had ordained Cyriacus priest
to a country church, subject to the Bishop of Mesthia, is referred to the
divine tribunal, upon his pretending that he did it by surprise. Cyriacus
had upon his ordination, been forced, contrary to canon, to swear that he

1458

would continue in that country church; but the Bishop of Mesthia, to
whom that church properly belonged, forced him out. St. Basil advises
Amphilochius to lay the country church to Masada, and make it subject to
Severus, and to permit Cyriacus to return to it and save his oath; and by
this means he supposes that Longinus, the Lord of that country, would be
prevailed upon to alter his resolution of laying that church desolate, as he
declared he would upon Cyriacus' s expulsion.

CANON XI

He that is guilty of involuntary murder, shall do eleven years' penance -
that is, if the murdered person, after he had here received the wound, do
again go abroad, and yet afterward die of the wound.

CANON XII

The canon excludes from the ministry those who are guilty of digamy.

CANON xm

Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder; yet I think it
advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forbear communion three
years.

1459

CANON xrv

An usurer, giving his unjust gain to the poor, and renouncing his love of
money, may be admitted into the clergy.

CANONS XV. and XVI.

Not properly canons, but explications of Scripture, and therefore neither
Balsamon, nor Aristenus, regard them as canons.

THE SECOND CANONICAL EPISTLE OF THE SAME.

(This is found translated in the same volume last referred to, Epistle cxcix.,
p. 236 et seqq.)

CANON XVII

I made a canon, that they at Antioch, who had sworn not to perform the
sacred offices should not do it publicly, but in private only: As to Bianor,
he is removed from thence to Iconium, and therefore is more at liberty; but
let him repent of his rash oath which he made to an infidel for avoiding a
small danger.

1460

CANON xvm

That the ancients received a professed virgin that had married, as one
guilty of digamy, viz., upon one year's penance; but they ought to be dealt
with more severely than widows professing continency, and even as
adulterers: But they ought not to be admitted to profess virginity till they
are above sixteen or seventeen years of age, after trial, and at their own
earnest request; whereas relations often offer them that are under age, for
their own secular ends, but such ought not easily to be admitted.

CANON XIX

That men, though they seem tacitly to promise celibacy, by becoming
monks, yet do it not expressly; yet I think fit that they be interrogated
too, and that a profession should be demanded of them, that if they betake
themselves to a carnal life, they may be punished as fornicators.

CANON XX

Women professing virginity, though they did marry while they were
heretics, or catechumens, yet are pardoned by baptism. What is done by
persons in the state of catechumens, is never laid to their charge.

1461

CANON XXI

A married man committing lewdness with a single woman, is severely
punished as guilty of fornication, but we have no canon to treat such a
man as an adulterer; but the wife must co-habit with such a one: But if the
wife be lewd, she is divorced, and he that retains her is [thought] impious;
such is the custom, but the reason of it does not appear.

CANON XXII

That they who have stolen virgins, and will not restore them, be treated as
fornicators; that they be one year mourners, the second hearers, the third
received to repentance and the fourth be co-standers, and then admitted to
communion of the Good Thing. If the virgins be restored to those who had
espoused them, it is at their discretion to marry them, or not; if to their
guardians, it is at their discretion to give them in marriage to the raptors, or
not.

CANON xxm

That a man ought not to marry two sisters, nor a woman two brothers:
That he who marries his brother's wife, be not admitted till he dismiss her.

1462

CANON XXIV

A widow put into the catalogue of widows, that is, a deaconess being sixty
years old, and marrying, is not to be admitted to communion of the Good
Thing, till she cease from her uncleanness; but to a widower that marries
no penance is appointed, but that of digamy. If the widow be less than
sixty, it is the bishop's fault who admitted her deaconess, not the
woman's.

CANON XXV

He that marries a woman that he has corrupted, shall be under penance for
corrupting her, but may retain her for his wife.

CANON XXVI

Fornication is neither marriage, nor the beginning of marriage. If it may be,
it is better that they who have committed fornication together be parted;
but if they be passionate lovers, let them not separate, for fear of what is
worse.

CANON XXVII

As for the priest that is engaged, through ignorance, in an unlawful
marriage, I have decreed, that he retain the honor of the chair; but forbear

1463

all sacred operations, and not give the blessing either in private, or public,
nor distribute the Body of Christ to another, nor perform any liturgy; but
let him bewail himself to the Lord, and to men, that his sin of ignorance
may be pardoned.

CANON xxvm

That it is ridiculous to vow not to eat swine's flesh, and to abstain from it
is not necessary.

CANON xxrx

That princes ought not to swear to wrong their subjects: that such rash
oaths ought to be repented of, and evil not to be justified under pretense of
religion.

CANON XXX

That they who steal women, and their accomplices, be not admitted to
prayers, or be co-standers for three years. Where no violence is used, there
no crime is committed, except there be lewdness in the case. A widow is at
her own discretion. We must not mind vain pretenses.

1464

CANON XXXI

She, whose husband is absent from home, if she co-habits with another
man, before she is persuaded of his death, commits adultery.

CANON XXXII

The clergyman who is deposed for mortal sin, shall not be
excommunicated.

canon xxxm

That a woman being delivered of a child in a journey, and taking no care of
it, shall be reputed guilty of murder.

CANON XXXIV

That the crime of women under penance for adultery, upon their own
confession, or otherwise convicted, be not published, lest it occasion their
death; but that they remain out of communion the appointed time.

1465

CANON XXXV

If a woman leave her husband, and if it do upon inquiry appear, that she
did it without reason, she deserves to be punished; but let him continue in
communion.

CANON XXXVI

A soldier's wife marrying after the long absence of her husband, but before
she is certified of his death, is more pardonable than another woman,
because it is more credible that he may be dead.

CANON xxxvn

That he, who having another man's wife or spouse taken away from him,
marries another, is guilty of adultery with the first, not with the second.

CANON xxxvin

If a woman run after him that has corrupted her, she shall be under
penance three years, though the parents be reconciled to her.

1466

CANON XXXLX

She, who continues to live with an adulterer, is all that time an adulteress.

CANON XL

She that [being a slave] gives herself up to the will of a man, without the
consent of her master, commits fornication; for pacts of those who are
under the power of others are null.

CANON XLI

A widow being at her own discretion, may marry to whom she will.

CANON XLII

Slaves marrying without the consent of their masters, or children without
consent of their fathers, it is not matrimony but fornication, till they ratify
it by consenting.

1467

CANON XLIH

That he who gives a mortal wound to another is a murderer, whether he
were the first, aggressor, or did it in his own defense.

CANON XLIV

The deaconess that has committed lewdness with a pagan is not to be
received to communion, but shall be admitted to the oblation, in the
seventh year — that is, if she live in chastity. The pagan, who after [he
has professed] the faith, betakes himself again to sacrilege, returns [like the
dog] to his vomit: we therefore do not permit the sacred body of a
deaconess to be carnally used.

CANON XLV

He that assumes the name of a Christian, but reproaches Christ, shall have
no advantage from his name.

CANON XL VI

She that marries a man who was deserted for a while by his wife, but is
afterward dismissed upon the return of the man's former wife, commits
fornication, but ignorantly: she shall not be prohibited marriage, but it is
better that she do not marry.

1468

CANON XLVII

Encratites, Saccophorians, and Apotactites, are in the same case with the
Novatians. We re-baptize them all. There is a diversity in the canons
relating to the Novatians, no canon concerning the other. If it be forbid
with you, as it is at Rome for prudential causes, yet let reason prevail.
They are a branch of the Marcionists; and though they baptize in the name
of the three divine Persons, yet they make God the author of evil, and
assert, that wine and the creatures of God, are defiled. The bishops ought
to meet, and so to explain the canon, that he who does [baptize such
heretics] may be out of danger, and that one may have a positive answer to
give to those that ask it.

CANON XLVIH

A woman dismissed from her husband, ought to remain unmarried, in my
judgment,

CANON XLIX

If a slave be forced by her master, she is innocent.

1469

CANON L

We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not
absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague fornication.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF THE SAME TO THE SAME.

(Found in lib. cit., p. 255, et seqq. Epistle ccxvij.)

CANON LI

That one punishment be inflicted on lapsing clergymen, viz.: deposition,
whether they be in dignity, or in, the ministry which is given without
imposition of hands.

CANON LII

A woman delivered in the road, and neglecting her child, is guilty of
murder, unless she was under necessity by reason of the solitude of the
place, and the want of necessaries.

1470

CANON LIII

A widow slave desiring to be married a second time, has, perhaps, been
guilty of no great crime in pretending that she was ravished; not her
pretense, but voluntary choice is to be condemned; but it is clear, that the
punishment of digamy is due to her.

CANON LIV

That it is in the bishop's power to increase or lessen penance for
involuntary murder.

CANON LV

They that are not ecclesiastics setting upon highwaymen, are repelled from
the communion of the Good Thing; clergymen are deposed.

CANON LVI

He that willfully commits murder, and afterwards repents, shall for
twenty years remain without communicating of the Holy Sacrament. Four
years he must mourn without the door of the oratory, and beg of the
communicants that go in, that prayer be offered for him; then for five
years he shall be admitted among the hearers, for seven years among the
prostrators; for four years he shall be a co-stander with the communicants,

1471

but shall not partake of the oblation; when these years are completed, he
shall partake of the Holy Sacrament.

CANON LVII

The involuntary murderer for two years shall be a mourner, for three years
a hearer, four years a prostrator, one year a co-stander, and then
communicate.

CANON LVm

The adulterer shall be four years a mourner, five a hearer, four a prostrator,
two a co-stander.

CANON LIX

The fornicator shall be a mourner two years, two a hearer, two a
prostrator, one a co-stander.

CANON LX

Professed virgins and monks, if they fall from their profession, shall
undergo the penance of adulterers.

1472

CANON LXI

The thief, if he discover himself, shall do one year's penance; if he be
discovered [by others] two; half the time he shall be a prostrator, the other
half a co-stander.

CANON LXII

He that abuses himself with mankind, shall do the penance of an adulterer.

CANON LXIH

And so shall he who abuses himself with beasts, if they voluntarily
confess it.

CANON LXIV

The perjured person shall be a mourner two years, a hearer three, a
prostrator four, a co-stander one.

1473

CANON LXV

He that confesses conjuration, or pharmacy, shall do penance as long as a
murderer.

CANON LXVI

He that digs the dead out of their graves, shall be a mourner two years, a
hearer three years, a prostrator four years, a co-stander one year.

CANON LXVII

Incest with a sister is punished as murder.

CANON LXVm

All incestuous conjunction, as adultery.

CANON LXIX

A reader or minister lying with a woman he has only espoused, shall cease
from his function one year; but if he have not espoused her, he shall
[wholly] cease from his ministry.

1474

CANON LXX

The priest or deacon that is polluted in lips, shall be made to cease from
his function, but shall communicate with the priests or deacons. He that
does more shall be deposed.

CANON LXXI

He that is convicted to have been conscious to any of these crimes, but not
discovered it, shall be treated as the principal.

CANON LXXH.

He that gives himself to divination, shall be treated as a murderer.

CANON LXXIII

He that denied Christ, is to be communicated at the hour of death, if he
confess it, and be a mourner till that time.

1475

CANON LXXIV

[The bishop] that has the power of binding and loosing, may lessen the
time of penance, to an earnest penitent.

CANON LXXV

He that commits incest with a half-sister, shall be a mourner three years, a
hearer three years, a co-stander two years.

CANON LXXVI

And so shall he be who takes in marriage his son's wife.

CANON LXXVII

He that divorces his wife, and marries another, is an adulterer; and
according to the canons of the Fathers, he shall be a mourner one year, a
hearer two years, a prostrator three years, a co-stander one year, if they
repent with tears.

1476

CANON LXXVIH

So shall he who successively marries two sisters.

CANON LXXK

So shall he who madly loves his mother-in-law, or sister.

CANON LXXX

The Fathers say nothing of polygamy as being beastly, and a thing
unagreeable to human nature. To us it appears a greater: sin than
fornication: Let therefore such [as are guilty of it] be liable to the canons,
viz.: after they have been mourners one year — let them be prostrators
three years — and then be received,

CANON LXXXI

They who in the invasion of the barbarians have after long torments, eaten
of magical things offered to idols, and have sworn heathen oaths, let them
not be received for three years; for two years let them be hearers, for three
years prostrators, so let them be received; but they who did it without
force, let them be ejected three years, be hearers two years, prostrators
three years, co-standers three years, so let them be admitted to
communion.

1477

CANON LXXXII

They who by force have been driven to perjury, let them be admitted after
six years; but if without force, let them be mourners two years, hearers
two years, the fifth year prostrators, two years co-standers.

CANON LXXXIH

They that follow heathenish customs, or bring men into their houses for
the contriving pharmacies, or repelling them, shall be one year mourners,
one year hearers, three years prostrators, one year co-standers.

CANON LXXXIV

We do not judge altogether by the length of time, but by the circumstances
of the penance. If any will not be drawn from their carnal pleasures, and
choose to serve them rather than the Lord, we have no communication
with them.

CANON LXXXV

Let us take care that we do not perish with them; let us warn them by
night and day, that we may deliver them out of the snare or however save
ourselves from their condemnation.

1478

FROM AN EPISTLE OF THE SAME TO THE BLESSED
AMPHILOCHIUS ON THE DIFFERENCE OF MEATS.

(Found translated in lib. cit, p. 287, part of Epistle ccxxxvj.)

CANON LXXXVI

Against the Encratites, who would not eat flesh.

OF THE SAME TO DIODORUS BISHOP OF TARSUS,
CONCERNING A MAN WHO HAD TAKEN TWO SISTERS TO

WB?E.

(Fouled translated in lib. cit., p. 212 et seqq. Epistle clx.)

CANON LXXXVH

Contains the preface of his letter to Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, in which
he tells him of a letter shewed him in justification of a man's marrying two
sisters bearing his name; but he hopes it was forged.

1479

CANON LXXXVIH

Contains the rest of the letter, in which he argues and inveighs against this
practice.

OF THE SAME TO GREGORY A PRESBYTER, THAT HE SHOULD
SEPARATE FROM A WOMAN WHO DWELT WITH HIM.

CANON LXXXLX

A letter to Gregory, an unmarried priest, charging him to dismiss a woman
whom he kept, though he was 70 years of age, and declared himself free
from all amorous affections; and St. Basil would seem to believe him in
this particular; but cites the III. canon of Nice against this practice, bids
him avoid scandal, place the woman in a monastery, and be attended by
men: he threatens him that if he does not comply, he shall die suspended
from his office, and give account to God: that he shall be an anathema to all
the people, and they who receive him [to communion] be excommunicated.

OF THE SAME TO THE CHOREPISCOPI, THAT NO
ORDINATIONS SHOULD BE MADE CONTRARY TO THE

CANONS.

(Found translated in Vol. VIII. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 157.
Epistle liv.)

1480

CANON XC

A letter to his Village-bishop: he complains of the want of discipline of the
multiplying of the clergy, and that without due examination and enquiry
into their morals; that they had dropped the old custom, which was for the
priests and deacons to recommend to the Village Bishop, who taking the
testimonial, and giving notice of it to the [City] Bishop, did afterwards
admit the minister into the sacerdotal list; that the number of the inferior
clergy was unreasonably increased, especially in time of war, when men
got into orders to avoid the press: he orders a list of the clergy in every
village to be sent to him, and who admitted him, if any have been admitted
into the inferior orders by priests, that they be looked on as laymen. Let
not who will, put his name into the list. Re-examine those who are there,
expel the unworthy, admit none without my consent for the future; if you
do he shall be counted a layman.

OF THE SAME TO HIS SUFFRAGANS THAT THEY SHOULD
NOT ORDAIN FOR MONEY.

(Found translated in lib. cit., pp. 156 and 157. Epistle liii.)

CANON XCI

One letter to the bishop subject to him, wherein he prohibits to take
money for orders, and to bring merchandise into the church, which is
entrusted with the Body, and Blood of Christ; they had their pay after the
ordination was performed; this he calls an artifice, and declares, that he
who is guilty of it shall depart from the altar in his country, and go buy
and sell the gift of God where he can.

1481

FROM CHAPTER XVII. OF THE BOOK ST. BASIL WROTE TO
BLESSED AMPHILOCHIUS ON THE HOLY GHOST.

(Found translated in lib. cit., p. 40 et seqq.)

CANON XCII

He speaks of the written doctrine, and the unwritten tradition of the
Apostles, and says, that both have the same efficacy as to religion. The
unwritten traditions which he mentions, are the signing those who hope in
Christ with the Cross; praying toward the East, to denote, that we are in
quest of Eden, that garden in the East from whence our first parents were
ejected (as he afterwards explains it), the words of invocation at the
consecration of the Bread of Eucharist, and the cup of eulogy; the
benediction of the baptismal water, the chrism and of the baptized person;
the trine immersion, and the renunciations made at baptism; all which the
Fathers concealed from those who were not initiated. He says the dogmata
were always kept secret, the Kerugmata published; he adds the tradition of
standing at prayer on the first day of the week, and the whole Pentecost
(that is, from Easter to Whitsunday), not only to denote our rising with
Christ, but as a prefiguration of our expecting an eternal perfect day, for
the enjoyment of which we erect ourselves; and lastly, the profession of
our faith in Father, Son and Holy Ghost at baptism.

1482

CANON XCIII

He asserts the Doxology [in these words] "with the Holy Spirit," to be an
unwritten, Apostolic tradition. For this is a dogma full of authority,
venerable for its antiquity.

FROM THE LETTER OF BASIL THE GREAT TO THE
NICOPOLITANS.

There is also in Tilius and Bishop Beveridge here inserted an epistle of St.
Basil the Great to the Nicopolitans, comforting them under the loss of
their church or oratory, and telling them, that they ought not to be
concerned that they worship God in the open air, for that the eleven
Apostles worshipped God in an upper room, where they were cooped up,
while they that crucified Jesus performed their worship in a most famous
Temple.

1483

VL

THE CANONICAL EPISTLE OF ST. GREGORY, BISHOP OF
NYSSA, TO ST. LETOIUS, BISHOP OF MELITENE.

CANON I

At Easter not only they who are transformed by the grace of the layer, i.e.
baptism, but they who are penitents and converts, are to be brought to
God, i.e. to the Communion: for Easter is that Catholic feast in which
there is a resurrection from the fall of sin.

CANON II

They who lapse without any force, so as to deny Christ, or do by choice
turn Jews, idolaters, or Manichees, or infidels of any sort, not to be
admitted to communion till the hour of death; and if they chance to recover
beyond expectation, to return to their penance. But they who were forced
by torments, to do the penance of fornication.

CANON III

If they who run to conjurers or diviners, do it through unbelief, they shall
be treated as they who willfully lapse, but if through want of sense, and

1484

through a vain hope of being relieved under their necessities, they shall be
treated as those who lapse through the violence of torment.

CANON IV

That fornicators be three years wholly ejected from prayer, three years
hearers, three years prostrators, and then admitted to communion; but the
time of heating and prostrating may be lessened to them who of their own
accord confess, and are earnest penitents. That this time be doubled in case
of adultery, and unlawful lusts, but discretion to be used.

CANON V

Voluntary murderers shall be nine years ejected out of the church, nine
years hearers, nine years prostrators; but every one of these nine years
may be reduced to seven or six, or even five, if the penitents be very
diligent. Involuntary murderers to be treated as fornicators, but still with
discretion, and allowing the communion on a death-bed, but on condition,
that they return to penance if they survive.

CANON VI

That the Fathers have been too gentle toward the idolatry of covetous
persons, in condemning to penance only robbery, digging of graves, and
sacrilege, whereas usury and oppression, though under color of contract,
are forbidden by Scripture. That highwaymen returning to the Church, be
treated as murderers. They that pilfer, and then confess their sin to the

1485

priest, are only obliged to amendment, and to be liberal to the poor; and if
they have nothing, to labor and give their earnings.

CANON VII

They who dig into graves, and rake into the ashes and bones of the dead, in
order to find some valuable flying buffed together with the corpse, (not
they who only take some stones belonging to a sepulcher, in order to use
them in building) to do the penance of fornicators.

CANON vm

He observes that by the law of Moses, sacrilege was punished as murder,
and that the guilty person was stoned to death, and thinks the Fathers too
gentle, in imposing a shorter penance on sacrilege than adultery. VII.

FROM THE METER POEMS OF ST. GREGORY THEOLOGUS,

SPECIFYING WHICH BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW

TESTAMENT SHOULD BE READ.

Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have
been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the
Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament
but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books] .
Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond
to the Hebrew letters. The number of the books of the New Mystery are
Matthew, who wrote the Miracles of Christ for the Hebrews; Mark for
Italy; Luke, for Greece; John, the enterer of heaven, was a preacher to all,

1486

then the Acts, the 14 Epistles of Paul, the 7 Catholic Epistles, and so you
have all the books. If there is any beside these, do not repute it genuine.

1487

vm

FROM THE IAMBICS OF ST. AMPHILOCHIUS THE BISHOP TO
SELEUCUS, ON THE SAME SUBJECT.

We should know that not every book which is called Scripture is to be
received as a safe guide. For some are tolerably sound and others are more
than doubtful. Therefore the books which the inspiration of God hath
given I will enumerate. [Then follows a list of the proto-canonical books of
the Old Testament, Esther alone being omitted. All the, deutero-canonical
books are omitted. He then continues] to these some add Esther. I must
now show what are the books of the New Testament. [Then follow all the
books of the New Testament except the Revelation. He continues,] But
some add to these the Revelation of John, but by far the majority say that
it is spurious. This is the most true canon of the divinely given Scriptures.

NOTE.

We have thus four [five if we accept the Laodicean list as genuine,]
different canons of Holy Scripture, all having the approval of the Council
in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical. From this there seems but one
conclusion possible, viz.: that the approval given was not specific but
general.

1488

K.

THE CANONICAL ANSWERS OF TIMOTHY, THE MOST HOLY

BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WHO WAS ONE OF THE CL

FATHERS GATHERED TOGETHER AT CONSTANTINOPLE, TO

THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED TO HIM CONCERNING BISHOPS

AND CLERICS.

QUESTION I.

If a lad of seven years old, or a man, being a catechumen, being present at
the oblation, does eat of it through ignorance, what shall be done in this
case?

Answer. Let him be illuminated, i.e. baptized, for he is called by God.

QUESTION II.

If baptism be desired for a catechumen that is possessed, what shall be
done?

Answer. Let him be baptized at the hour of death, not otherwise.

QUESTION III.

Ought a communicant to communicate, if he be possessed?

1489

Answer. If he do not expose or blaspheme the Mysteries, let him
communicate not always, but at certain times.

QUESTION IV.

If a catechumen be sick, and in a frenzy, so that he cannot make profession
of his faith, can he be baptized, at the entreaty of his friends?

Answer. He may, if he be not possessed.

QUESTION V.

Can a man or woman communicate after performing the conjugal act over
night?

Answer. No. 1 Corinthians 7:5.

QUESTION VI.

The day appointed for the baptism of a woman; on that day it happened
that the custom of women was upon her; ought she then to be baptized?

Answer. No, not till she be clean.

QUESTION VII.

Can a menstruous woman communicate?
Answer. Not until she be clean.

1490
QUESTION VHI.

Ought a woman in child-bed to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.

QUESTION IX.

Ought a clergyman to perform the oblation, or pray, while an Arian or
heretic is present?

Answer. As to the divine oblation, the deacon, after the kiss, makes a
proclamation, "Let all that are not Communicants walk off;" therefore
such persons ought not to be present, except they promise to repent, and
renounce their heresy.

QUESTION X.

Is a sick man obliged to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.

QUESTION XL

If a clergyman be called to celebrate a marriage, and have heard that it is
incestuous; ought he to comply, and perform the oblation?

Answer. No; he must not be partaker of other men's sins.

1491

QUESTION XII.

If a layman ask a clergyman whether he may communicate after a
nocturnal pollution?

Answer. If it proceed from the desire of a woman, he ought not: but if it be
a temptation from Satan, he ought; for the tempter will ply him when he is
to communicate.

QUESTION XHI.

When are man and wife to forbear the conjugal act?

Answer. On Saturday, and the Lord's day; for on those days the spiritual
sacrifice is offered.

QUESTION XIV.

Shall there be an oblation for him, who being distracted, murders himself?
Answer. Not except the case be very clear that he was distracted.

QUESTION XV.

If one's wife be possessed to such a degree, as that she be bound with
irons, and the man cannot contain, may he marry another?

Answer. I can only say it would be adultery so to do.

1492

QUESTION XVI.

If a man in washing or bathing, swallow a drop of water, may he
communicate after it?

Answer. If Satan find an occasion of hindering us from the communion, he
will the oftener do it.

QUESTION XVII.

Are they, who hear the Word, and do it not, damned?
Answer. If we neither do it, or repent that we have not done it.

QUESTION XVIH.

At what age are sins imputed to us by God?

Answer. According to every one's capacity and understanding; to one at
ten, to another when older.

1493

THE PROSPHONESUS OF THEOPHILUS, ARCHBISHOP OF
ALEXANDRIA, WHEN THE HOLY EPIPHANIES HAPPENED TO

FALL ON A SUNDAY.

CANON I

Because the fast of Epiphany chances to fall on a Lord's day, let us take a
few dates, and so break our fast, and honor the Lord's day, and shew our
dislike of heresy, and yet not wholly neglect the fast which should be
observed on this day; eating no more till our evening assembly at three
afternoon.

THE COMMONITORY OF THE SAME WHICH AMMON
RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF LYCUS.

CANON II

Let [the priests] who have communicated with the Arians, be retained or
rejected, as the custom of every church is; but so, that other orthodox
[priests] be ordained, though the others continue. As the orthodox bishops
did in Thebais, so let it be in other cities. They who were ordained by
Bishop Apollo, and afterwards communicated with the Arians, if they did
it of their own accord, let them be censured; but if they only did it in
obedience to the bishop, let them be continued; but if all the people
abdicate them, others must be ordained. And if Bistus the priest be found

1494

to have committed uncleanness with a woman dismissed from her
husband, let him not be permitted to be a priest. But this is no prejudice to
the bishop who ordained him, if he did it ignorantly; since the Holy Synod
commands unworthy men to be ejected, though they be not convicted until
after ordination.

CANON III

Let Bishop Apollo's sentence against his priest Sur prevail, though he has
the liberty of being further heard.

CANON IV

If Panuph the deacon married his brother's daughter before baptism, let
him continue among the clergy, if she be dead, and he had not to do with
her after his baptism; but if he married her, and cohabited with her while
he was a communicant, let him be ejected from the clergy, without
prejudice to the bishop who ordained him, if he did it ignorantly.

CANON V

If it do evidently appear, that Jacob, while he was reader, did commit
fornication, and was ejected by the priests (npeofiwikpcov) and yet
afterwards ordained, let him be ejected, and not otherwise.

1495

CANON VI

That all in holy orders unanimously choose those who are to be ordained,
and then the bishop examine [them] ; or that the bishop ordain them in the
midst of the church, all that are in holy orders consenting, and the bishop
with a loud voice asking the people, who are then to be present, whether
they can give their testimony [to the parties to be ordained] ; and that
ordination be not performed in private; if there be in the remote country,
who while they were communicants [with the Arians] communicated in
their opinions, let them not be ordained until they be examined by
orthodox clergymen, in the presence of the bishop, who is to charge the
people, that there be no running up and down in the middle of the church,
or service.

CANON VII

Let the clergymen distribute all that is offered by way of sacrifice, after so
much as was necessary has been consumed in the Mysteries. Let not the
catechumens taste of them, but clergymen and communicants only.

CANON vin

One, Hierax, had delated a clergyman as guilty of fornication. Bishop
Apollo defended him. Theophilus orders the matter to be examined.

1496

CANON IX

That an oeconomus he created, by the consent of all that are in Holy
Orders, with the concurrence of Bishop Apollo, that so the goods of the
Church be expended as they ought.

CANON X

That the widows, poor, and travelers be not disturbed; and that no one
make a property of the goods of the Church.

OF THE SAME TO AGATHO THE BISHOP.

Whereas Maximus has for ten years lived in unlawful marriage, but
pretends that it was through ignorance, and that they are now parted by
mutual consent, let them stand among the catechumens, if it appear that
they be in earnest.

OF THE SAME TO MENAS THE BISHOP.

Theophilus was informed, that the priest in Geminus, a village, had
repelled Kyradium (a woman) from the communion: Theophilus approves
of it, because she had done wrong, and was unwilling to make satisfaction;
but orders her to be admitted to communion upon repentance.

1497

THE NARRATIVE OF THE SAME CONCERNING THOSE
CALLED CATHARL

Because the great synod held at Nice has decreed, That [the clergymen]
who come over to the Church from the Novatians be ordained; do you
ordain those that come over, if their life be upright, and there be no
objection.

1498

XL

THE CANONICAL EPISTLE OF OUR HOLY FATHER AMONG
THE SAINTS, CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE

HYMNS.

CYRIL TO DOMNUS.

This letter contains a complaint of one, Peter, deposed from his See, yet
retaining the character of a bishop, who thought his cause good, but
complains that he had not time and opportunity given him for his defense;
and that whatever he had, was taken away from him. He desires Domnus,
who was a Metropolitan, that he would call a synod, and let him have a
hearing; and that such bishops as Peter suspected of prejudice against him
should not be permitted to be his judges. He thinks it very hard, that not
only what belonged to the Church, but every thing else was taken from
him; and complains that all bishops were called to account for every thing
they received, whether from the Church, or by any other means. Peter had
indeed signed an instrument of resignation; but Cyril says, that he was
terrified into it; and that he would have no such resignation be of force
except he that made it deserved deposition.

OF THE SAME TO THE BISHOPS OF LIBYA AND PENTAPOLIS.

There is another Epistle of the same father, complaining to the bishops of
Libya and Pentapolis. That some who had been refused ordination by their
own bishop, or east out of the monasteries for their irregularity, were
ordained by a surprise upon some other bishop, and that just as they came
from their bride-bed, and then went and performed the oblation, or any

1499

other office, in the monasteries from which they had been ejected, which
gave great offense. He charges the bishops to take care of this for the
future and, if any were to be ordained, to enquire into their lives, and
whether they are married, and when, and how; and orders, that
catechumens, who had been separated for lapsing, be baptized at the hour
of death.

1500

xn.

THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GENNADIUS, PATRIARCH OF

CONSTANTINOPLE AND OF THE HOLY SYNOD MET WITH

HIM TO ALL THE HOLY METROPOLITANS AND TO THE POPE

OF THE CITY OF ROME.

To the most beloved of God, fellow-minister, Gennadius and the most
holy synod assembled in the royal city which is New Rome, sendeth
greeting.

As our Lord without money and without price ordained his Apostles, so
should we ordain the clergy, for the Lord has placed us in their grade and
in their stead (kic, tov eiceivcov pocOnpv xe koci totiov) Nor should we
use any ingenious sophisms to avoid this plain duty, explicitly laid upon
us, not only by the words of the Gospel but also by a canon of the great
Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>